Xue-Biao Wei1, Lei Jiang1, Xin-Rong Liu1, Dan-Qing Yu1, Ning Tan1, Ji-Yan Chen1, Ying-Ling Zhou1, Peng-Cheng He2, Yuan-Hui Liu3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China. gdhpc100@126.com. 3. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China. lyh0718@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a serious complication and associated with poor clinical outcomes. The protective value of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) administration on CIN is still controversial in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary angiography (CAG). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for BNP in preventing CIN. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs comparing administration of BNP versus non-BNP for preventing CIN. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Relative risk (RR) was calculated for incidence of CIN and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) using the random or fixed effect model according to heterogeneity analysis. RESULTS: There were five RCTs with 1441 patients in this analysis. BNP treatment was associated with lower incidence of CIN (RR = 0.38, 95 % CI 0.27-0.54, p < 0.001) and MACEs (RR = 0.47, 95 % CI 0.24-0.95, p = 0.034) with no significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0 %, p = 0.701; I 2 = 60 %, p = 0.113, respectively). Similar results were seen in subgroup analysis. Prophylactic BNP significantly decreased the incidence of CIN after cardiac catheterization in the studies of regarding sodium chloride as placebo (I 2 = 0 %, RR = 0.39, 95 % CI 0.27-0.56, p < 0.001) or JADAD score > 3 (I 2 = 0 %, RR = 0.38, 95 % CI 0.21-0.68, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preprocedural BNP treatment significantly decreased the incidence of CIN and short-term MACEs in patients undergoing PCI or CAG.
PURPOSE: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a serious complication and associated with poor clinical outcomes. The protective value of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) administration on CIN is still controversial in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary angiography (CAG). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for BNP in preventing CIN. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs comparing administration of BNP versus non-BNP for preventing CIN. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Relative risk (RR) was calculated for incidence of CIN and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) using the random or fixed effect model according to heterogeneity analysis. RESULTS: There were five RCTs with 1441 patients in this analysis. BNP treatment was associated with lower incidence of CIN (RR = 0.38, 95 % CI 0.27-0.54, p < 0.001) and MACEs (RR = 0.47, 95 % CI 0.24-0.95, p = 0.034) with no significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0 %, p = 0.701; I 2 = 60 %, p = 0.113, respectively). Similar results were seen in subgroup analysis. Prophylactic BNP significantly decreased the incidence of CIN after cardiac catheterization in the studies of regarding sodium chloride as placebo (I 2 = 0 %, RR = 0.39, 95 % CI 0.27-0.56, p < 0.001) or JADAD score > 3 (I 2 = 0 %, RR = 0.38, 95 % CI 0.21-0.68, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preprocedural BNP treatment significantly decreased the incidence of CIN and short-term MACEs in patients undergoing PCI or CAG.
Authors: James Tumlin; Fulvio Stacul; Andy Adam; Christoph R Becker; Charles Davidson; Norbert Lameire; Peter A McCullough Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-02-17 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Giancarlo Marenzi; Nicola Cosentino; José P Werba; Calogero C Tedesco; Fabrizio Veglia; Antonio L Bartorelli Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Amar Narula; Roxana Mehran; Giora Weisz; George D Dangas; Jennifer Yu; Philippe Généreux; Eugenia Nikolsky; Sorin J Brener; Bernhard Witzenbichler; Giulio Guagliumi; Avery E Clark; Martin Fahy; Ke Xu; Bruce R Brodie; Gregg W Stone Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: W S Colucci; U Elkayam; D P Horton; W T Abraham; R C Bourge; A D Johnson; L E Wagoner; M M Givertz; C S Liang; M Neibaur; W H Haught; T H LeJemtel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew T James; Susan M Samuel; Megan A Manning; Marcello Tonelli; William A Ghali; Peter Faris; Merril L Knudtson; Neesh Pannu; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 6.546