Zhang Weidai, Zhang Jiawei, Yang Baojun, Wu Kefei, Lin Hanfei, Wang Yanping, Zhou Lihong, Wang Huatao, Zeng Chujuan, Chen Xiao, Wang Zhixing, Zhu Junxing, Songming Chen
Departments of Cardiology.
Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College.
Coron Artery Dis. 2018 Jun;29(4):286-293. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000607.
The effectiveness of oral hydration in preventing contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients undergoing coronary angiography or intervention has not been well established. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of oral hydration compared with intravenous hydration and other frequently used hydration strategies.
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched from inception to 8 October 2017. To be eligible for analysis, studies had to evaluate the relative efficacy of different prophylactic hydration strategies. We selected and assessed the studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and carried out a pairwise and network meta-analysis using RevMan5.2 and Aggregate Data Drug Information System 1.16.8 software.
A total of four studies (538 participants) were included in our pairwise meta-analysis and 1754 participants from eight studies with four frequently used hydration strategies were included in a network meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analysis indicated that oral hydration was as effective as intravenous hydration for the prevention of CI-AKI (5.88 vs. 8.43%; odds ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.47; P>0.05), with no significant heterogeneity between studies. Network meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the prevention of CI-AKI. However, the rank probability plot suggested that oral plus intravenous hydration had a higher probability (51%) of being the best strategy, followed by diuretic plus intravenous hydration (39%) and oral hydration alone (10%). Intravenous hydration alone was the strategy with the highest probability (70%) of being the worst hydration strategy.
Our study shows that oral hydration is not inferior to intravenous hydration for the prevention of CI-AKI in patients with normal or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography or intervention.
口服补液预防接受冠状动脉造影或介入治疗患者的造影剂诱导的急性肾损伤(CI-AKI)的有效性尚未得到充分证实。本研究旨在评估口服补液与静脉补液及其他常用补液策略相比的疗效。
检索了从数据库建立至2017年10月8日的PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库。为符合分析条件,研究必须评估不同预防性补液策略的相对疗效。我们选择并评估了符合纳入标准的研究,并使用RevMan5.2和综合数据药物信息系统1.16.8软件进行了成对和网状荟萃分析。
我们的成对荟萃分析共纳入四项研究(538名参与者),网状荟萃分析纳入了八项研究中的1754名参与者,涉及四种常用补液策略。成对荟萃分析表明,口服补液在预防CI-AKI方面与静脉补液同样有效(5.88%对8.43%;优势比:0.73;95%置信区间:0.36-1.47;P>0.05),研究之间无显著异质性。网状荟萃分析表明,在预防CI-AKI方面无显著差异。然而,排序概率图显示,口服加静脉补液成为最佳策略的概率更高(51%),其次是利尿剂加静脉补液(39%)和单纯口服补液(10%)。单纯静脉补液是成为最差补液策略概率最高(70%)的策略。
我们的研究表明,对于肾功能正常或轻度至中度肾功能不全且接受冠状动脉造影或介入治疗的患者,口服补液在预防CI-AKI方面并不劣于静脉补液。