Dataset Information

Extended renal outcomes with use of iodixanol versus iohexol after coronary angiography.

ABSTRACT: The impact of isoosmolar versus low-osmolar contrast media (CM) administration on contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) and extended renal dysfunction (ERD) is unclear. We retrospectively examined incidences of CI-AKI and ERD in patients who received iodixanol (isoosmolar) versus iohexol (low-osmolar) during angiography for cardiac indications. Of 713 patients, 560 (cohort A), 190 (cohort B), and 172 (cohort C) had serum creatinine monitored at 3 days, 30 days, and 6 months after angiography, respectively. 18% of cohort A developed CI-AKI, which was more common with iodixanol than iohexol (22% versus 13%, P = 0.006). However, patients given iodixanol were older with lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR). On multivariate analysis, independent associations with higher CI-AKI risk include age >65 years, female gender, cardiac failure, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, intra-aortic balloon pump, and critical illness, but not CM type, higher CM load, or eGFR < 45?mL/min/1.73?m(2). 32% of cohort B and 34% of cohort C had ERD at 30 days and 6 months, while 44% and 41% of subcohorts had ERD at 90 days and 1 year, respectively. CI-AKI, but not CM type, was associated with medium- and longer-term ERD, with 3-fold higher risk. Advanced age, emergent cardiac conditions, and critical illness are stronger predictors of CI-AKI, compared with CM-related factors. CI-AKI predicts longer-term ERD.

SUBMITTER: Chua HR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4142278 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Extended renal outcomes with use of iodixanol versus iohexol after coronary angiography.

Chua Horng-Ruey HR Horrigan Mark M Mcintosh Elizabeth E Bellomo Rinaldo R

BioMed research international 20140807

The impact of isoosmolar versus low-osmolar contrast media (CM) administration on contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) and extended renal dysfunction (ERD) is unclear. We retrospectively examined incidences of CI-AKI and ERD in patients who received iodixanol (isoosmolar) versus iohexol (low-osmolar) during angiography for cardiac indications. Of 713 patients, 560 (cohort A), 190 (cohort B), and 172 (cohort C) had serum creatinine monitored at 3 days, 30 days, and 6 months after angiogr ...[more]

PMID: 25180184

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveBecause there is evidence for a clinical benefit of using coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography instead of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), we ascertained if patient satisfaction could represent an important barrier to implementation of coronary CT in clinical practice.Materials and methodsA total of 329 patients with suspected CAD and clinical indication for ICA were randomly assigned to undergo either CT or ICA for guiding treatment. Satisfaction for both groups was assessed by patient questionnaire completed twice, ≥24 h after CT or ICA, and at follow-up after a median of 3.7 years. Assessment included preparation, concern, comfort, helplessness, pain, willingness to undergo tests again, overall satisfaction, and preference. Pearson's chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used.ResultsOverall, 91% of patients undergoing CT (152/167) and 86% undergoing ICA completed assessment (140/162, p = 0.19). Patients reported being significantly better prepared for CT, less concerned about the test, and felt less helpless than during ICA (all: p < 0.001). Subjective pain (horizontal nonmarked visual analogue scale) was significantly lower for CT (6.9 ± 14.7) than for ICA (17.1 ± 22.7; p < 0.001). At follow-up, significantly more patients in the CT group reported very good satisfaction with communication of findings compared with the ICA group (p < 0.001) and 92% would recommend the institution to someone referred for the same examination.ConclusionsResults from our single-center randomized study show very good satisfaction with coronary CT compared to ICA. Thus, superior acceptance of CT should be considered in shared decision-making.Clinical relevance statementThis evaluation of patient satisfaction in a randomized study shows that patients' preference is in line with the clinical benefit provided by CT and also suggests to prefer a CT-first strategy in suspected coronary artery disease.Key points• Subjective pain was significantly lower for coronary CT angiography than for invasive coronary angiography and patients felt better prepared and less concerned about CT. • Patients were overall more satisfied with coronary CT angiography than invasive coronary angiography in a randomized controlled trial. • After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, more patients in the CT group indicated very good satisfaction with the communication of findings and with the examination itself.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear whether an evaluation incorporating coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is more effective than standard evaluation in the emergency department in patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes.MethodsIn this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients 40 to 74 years of age with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes but without ischemic electrocardiographic changes or an initial positive troponin test to early CCTA or to standard evaluation in the emergency department on weekdays during daylight hours between April 2010 and January 2012. The primary end point was length of stay in the hospital. Secondary end points included rates of discharge from the emergency department, major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days, and cumulative costs. Safety end points were undetected acute coronary syndromes.ResultsThe rate of acute coronary syndromes among 1000 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 54±8 years (47% women) was 8%. After early CCTA, as compared with standard evaluation, the mean length of stay in the hospital was reduced by 7.6 hours (P<0.001) and more patients were discharged directly from the emergency department (47% vs. 12%, P<0.001). There were no undetected acute coronary syndromes and no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days. After CCTA, there was more downstream testing and higher radiation exposure. The cumulative mean cost of care was similar in the CCTA group and the standard-evaluation group ($4,289 and $4,060, respectively; P=0.65).ConclusionsIn patients in the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes, incorporating CCTA into a triage strategy improved the efficiency of clinical decision making, as compared with a standard evaluation in the emergency department, but it resulted in an increase in downstream testing and radiation exposure with no decrease in the overall costs of care. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ROMICAT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01084239.).

Dataset Information

Extended renal outcomes with use of iodixanol versus iohexol after coronary angiography.

Publications

Extended renal outcomes with use of iodixanol versus iohexol after coronary angiography.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets