Carmen Sebastià1, Alfredo Páez-Carpio2, Elena Guillen3, Blanca Paño2, Joan Albert Arnaiz4, Angel L M De Francisco5, Carlos Nicolau2,6, Laura Oleaga2,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain. msebasti@clinic.cat. 2. Department of Radiology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Nephrology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Nephrology, Hospital Universitario Valdecilla, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Cantabria, Spain. 6. Universitat de Barcelona, Campus Clínic, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: T he objective of this study is to evaluate oral hydration compared to intravenous (i.v.) hydration in the prevention of post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) in the oncologic subgroup of patients with stage IIIb chronic kidney disease (CKD) included in the NICIR study referred for elective contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective subanalysis of the oncological subgroup (174/228 patients, 74%) from a continuous prospective database of patients included in the recently published non-inferiority NICIR study. Patients received prophylaxis against PC-AKI with either oral hydration (500 mL of water 2 h before and 2000 mL during the 24 h after CE-CT) or i.v. hydration (sodium bicarbonate (166 mmol/L) 3 mL/kg/h starting 1 h before and 1 mL/kg/h during the first hour after CE-CT). The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of PC-AKI in the first 48 to 72 h after CE-CT in the two hydration groups. Secondary outcomes were to compare persistent PC-AKI, the need for haemodialysis, and the occurrence of adverse events related to prophylaxis in each group. RESULTS: Of 174 patients included in the subanalysis, 82 received oral hydration and 92 received i.v. hydration. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics or risk factors between the two study arms. Overall the PC-AKI rate was 4.6% (8/174 patients), being 3.7% in the oral hydration arm (3/82 patients) and 5.4% (5/92 patients) in the i.v. hydration arm. The persistent PC-AKI rate was 1.2% (1/82 patients) in the oral hydration arm and 3.3% (3/92 patients) in the i.v. hydration arm. No patient required dialysis during the first month after CE-CT or had adverse effects related to the hydration regime. CONCLUSION: In oncological patients with stage IIIb CKD referred for elective CE-CT, the rate of PC-AKI in those receiving oral hydration did not significantly differ from that of patients receiving i.v. hydration.
BACKGROUND: T he objective of this study is to evaluate oral hydration compared to intravenous (i.v.) hydration in the prevention of post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) in the oncologic subgroup of patients with stage IIIb chronic kidney disease (CKD) included in the NICIR study referred for elective contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective subanalysis of the oncological subgroup (174/228 patients, 74%) from a continuous prospective database of patients included in the recently published non-inferiority NICIR study. Patients received prophylaxis against PC-AKI with either oral hydration (500 mL of water 2 h before and 2000 mL during the 24 h after CE-CT) or i.v. hydration (sodium bicarbonate (166 mmol/L) 3 mL/kg/h starting 1 h before and 1 mL/kg/h during the first hour after CE-CT). The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of PC-AKI in the first 48 to 72 h after CE-CT in the two hydration groups. Secondary outcomes were to compare persistent PC-AKI, the need for haemodialysis, and the occurrence of adverse events related to prophylaxis in each group. RESULTS: Of 174 patients included in the subanalysis, 82 received oral hydration and 92 received i.v. hydration. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics or risk factors between the two study arms. Overall the PC-AKI rate was 4.6% (8/174 patients), being 3.7% in the oral hydration arm (3/82 patients) and 5.4% (5/92 patients) in the i.v. hydration arm. The persistent PC-AKI rate was 1.2% (1/82 patients) in the oral hydration arm and 3.3% (3/92 patients) in the i.v. hydration arm. No patient required dialysis during the first month after CE-CT or had adverse effects related to the hydration regime. CONCLUSION: In oncological patients with stage IIIb CKD referred for elective CE-CT, the rate of PC-AKI in those receiving oral hydration did not significantly differ from that of patients receiving i.v. hydration.
Authors: Christian Fynbo Christiansen; Martin Berg Johansen; Wendy J Langeberg; Jon P Fryzek; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Eur J Intern Med Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 4.487
Authors: Jennifer S McDonald; Robert J McDonald; Jules Comin; Eric E Williamson; Richard W Katzberg; M Hassan Murad; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Mark A Perazella; Jerry Yee; Jonathan R Dillman; Derek Fine; Robert J McDonald; Roger A Rodby; Carolyn L Wang; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert J McDonald; Jennifer S McDonald; John P Bida; Rickey E Carter; Chad J Fleming; Sanjay Misra; Eric E Williamson; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Aart J van der Molen; Peter Reimer; Ilona A Dekkers; Georg Bongartz; Marie-France Bellin; Michele Bertolotto; Olivier Clement; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Fulvio Stacul; Judith A W Webb; Henrik S Thomsen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 5.315