4.7 Article

Harmful effect of repetitive intravenous iodinated contrast media administration on the long-term renal function of patients with early gastric cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-46773-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study investigated the impact of repetitive exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media on long-term renal function in patients who underwent curative surgery for gastric cancer. The study found that the frequency of CT scans using ICM slightly increased the odds of developing chronic kidney disease.
This retrospective study investigated whether repetitive exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media (ICM) affects long-term renal function in patients who undergo curative surgery for early gastric cancer (EGC) collected from the Korean Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) database. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer between January 2010 and December 2013 underwent regular computed tomography (CT) scans to monitor for extragastric recurrence. Patients who already had chronic kidney disease (CKD) before cancer diagnosis or had undergone chemotherapy or repeated surgery were excluded. A nested case-control study design was chosen to analyze the effect of repetitive ICM exposure to long-term renal function by comparing patients who developed CKD 2 years after cancer diagnosis and patients who did not. Among 59,971 patients collected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1021 were diagnosed with CKD 2 years after cancer diagnosis. Using 1:5 matching after adjusting for age, sex and date of cancer diagnosis, 5097 control patients were matched to 1021 CKD patients. Conditional logistic regression showed that the number of CTs taken using ICM slightly increased the odds of CKD (odds ratio, 1.080; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.059, 1.100; P < 0.0001). Thus, the administration of ICM might contribute to chronic renal function impairment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据