Biondi-Zoccai Giuseppe, Lotrionte Marzia, Thomsen Henrik S, Romagnoli Enrico, D'Ascenzo Fabrizio, Giordano Arturo, Frati Giacomo
Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Heart Failure and Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit, Columbus Integrated Complex, Rome, Italy.
Int J Cardiol. 2014 Mar 15;172(2):375-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.01.075. Epub 2014 Jan 24.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) may be a severe complication to the administration of iodine-based contrast media for diagnostic or interventional procedure using radiation exposure. Whether there is a difference in nephrotoxic potential between the various agents is uncertain. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials on iodine-based contrast agents.
Randomized trials of low-osmolar or iso-osmolar contrast media were searched in CENTRAL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Scopus. Risk of CIN was appraised within a hierarchical Bayesian model computing absolute rates (AR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% credibility intervals, and probability of being best (Pbest) for each agent.
A total of 42 trials (10048 patients) were included focusing on 7 different iodine-based contrast media. Risk of CIN was similarly low with iodixanol (AR=5.7% [2.2%-13.9%], Pbest=18.8%), iomeprol (AR=6.0% [2.2%-15.4%], Pbest=24.8%), iopamidol (AR=6.1% [2.2%-15.5%], Pbest=21.5%), and ioversol (AR=6.0% [2.1%-16.4%], Pbest=31.3%). Conversely, CIN was twice as common with iohexol (AR=11.2% [4.1%-29.5%], Pbest=0.1%) and ioxaglate (AR=11.0% [4.0%-26.9%], Pbest<0.1%), with both proving less safe than iodixanol (respectively OR=2.18 [1.22-3.92] and 2.05 [1.26-3.29]), iomeprol (OR=2.08 [1.04-4.17] and 1.96 [1.06-3.48]) and iopamidol (OR=2.04 [1.15-3.85] and 1.92 [1.06-3.45]). Data on iopromide were less conclusive (AR=6.9% [2.6%-17.1%], Pbest=3.6%).
Iodixanol, iomeprol, iopamidol and ioversol are iodine-based contrast media with a similar renal safety profile. Iohexol and ioxaglate have a poorer renal safety profile, whereas further data may be required on iopromide.
背景/目的:造影剂肾病(CIN)可能是在使用辐射暴露的诊断或介入操作中给予碘造影剂时的一种严重并发症。各种造影剂之间的肾毒性潜力是否存在差异尚不确定。我们旨在对基于碘的造影剂的随机试验进行系统评价和网状Meta分析。
在CENTRAL、谷歌学术、MEDLINE/PubMed和Scopus中检索低渗或等渗造影剂的随机试验。在一个分层贝叶斯模型中评估CIN的风险,计算绝对发生率(AR)和比值比(OR)以及95%可信区间,以及每种造影剂的最佳概率(Pbest)。
共纳入42项试验(10048例患者),聚焦7种不同的基于碘的造影剂。碘克沙醇(AR=5.7%[2.2%-13.9%],Pbest=18.8%)、碘美普尔(AR=6.0%[2.2%-15.4%],Pbest=24.8%)、碘帕醇(AR=6.1%[2.2%-15.5%],Pbest=21.5%)和碘佛醇(AR=6.0%[2.1%-16.4%],Pbest=31.3%)导致CIN的风险同样较低。相反,碘海醇(AR=11.2%[4.1%-29.5%],Pbest=0.1%)和碘克酸(AR=11.0%[4.0%-26.9%],Pbest<0.1%)导致CIN的情况是前者的两倍,二者均不如碘克沙醇安全(分别为OR=2.18[1.22-3.92]和2.05[1.26-3.29])、碘美普尔(OR=2.08[1.04-4.17]和l.96[1.06-3.48])以及碘帕醇(OR=2.04[1.15-3.85]和1.92[1.06-3.45])。关于碘普罗胺的数据结论性较差(AR=6.9%[2.6%-17.1%],Pbest=3.6%)。
碘克沙醇、碘美普尔、碘帕醇和碘佛醇是肾安全性相似的基于碘的造影剂。碘海醇和碘克酸的肾安全性较差,而碘普罗胺可能需要更多数据。