From the Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität and Freie Universität zu Berlin, Schumannstr 20/21, Berlin 10117, Germany (E.S., M.B., E.Z., R.T, M.L., M.D.); and Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometry, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany (P.M.).
Radiology. 2019 Sep;292(3):664-672. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182220. Epub 2019 Jul 2.
Background In the absence of randomized studies, it has been controversial whether the likelihood of acute kidney injury (AKI) differs between intravenous and intra-arterial contrast agent administration. Purpose To compare intravenous versus intra-arterial contrast agent administration in relationship to AKI and analyze the association between AKI and chronic kidney disease (defined as at least mildly decreased estimated glomerular filtration rates [eGFRs]). Materials and Methods This was a prospective study (: NCT00844220) that involved randomizing participants with atypical chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) between February 2009 and August 2015 to undergo coronary CT angiography with intravenous contrast agent administration or cardiac catheterization angiography with intra-arterial contrast agent administration. This prespecified secondary analysis compared AKI (serum creatinine increase of ≥ 25% or 0.5 mg/dL after 18-24 or 46-50 hours) determined by blinded investigators using absolute differences and relative risks, including two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 320 participants (163 [50.9%] women; mean age, 60 years ± 11) were included. Baseline eGFR did not differ between the CT angiography group (84.3 mL/min/1.73 m ± 17.2) and the catheterization group (87.1 mL/min/1.73 m ± 16.7) ( = .14). AKI occurred in nine of 161 participants in the CT angiography group (5.6%; 95% CI: 3%, 10%) and in 21 of 159 participants in the catheterization group (13.2%; 95% CI: 9%,19%) (relative risk, 2.4; 95% CI: 1.1, 5.0; = .02). Also in the subgroup of participants without obstructive CAD, in those not requiring coronary interventions, AKI was more common in the catheterization group (11.9%; 95% CI: 8%, 19%) than in the CT angiography group (4.3% [95% CI: 2%, 9%]; difference, 7.7% [95% CI: 1.3%, 14.1%]; relative risk, 2.8 [95% CI: 1.1, 7.0]; = .02). Obstructive CAD (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7 [95% CI: 1.1, 6.6]; = .02), femoral catheter access (OR: 2.5 [95% CI: 1.1, 5.6]; = .04), and cine ventriculography were associated with AKI (OR: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.0, 4.9]; = .03). In multivariable analysis, the presence of postcontrast AKI was associated with chronic kidney disease (hazard ratio: 12.4 [95% CI: 4.5, 34.6]; < .01). Conclusion Acute kidney injury was more common after cardiac catheterization than after CT angiography in this prospective randomized study of patients suspected of having coronary artery disease. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Einstein and Newhouse in this issue.
背景 在缺乏随机研究的情况下,静脉内和动脉内造影剂给药导致急性肾损伤 (AKI) 的可能性是否不同一直存在争议。
目的 比较静脉内与动脉内造影剂给药与 AKI 的关系,并分析 AKI 与慢性肾脏病 (定义为肾小球滤过率 [eGFR] 至少轻度下降) 之间的关系。
材料与方法 这是一项前瞻性研究(NCT00844220),纳入了 2009 年 2 月至 2015 年 8 月期间疑似患有非典型胸痛和冠心病 (CAD) 的参与者,将他们随机分配接受静脉内造影剂冠状动脉 CT 血管造影或经导管冠状动脉造影。本预设的次要分析比较了由盲法研究者使用绝对差值和相对风险(包括双侧 95%置信区间 [CI])确定的 AKI(血清肌酐增加≥25%或 18-24 或 46-50 小时后增加 0.5mg/dL)。
结果 共纳入 320 名参与者(163 名 [50.9%] 为女性;平均年龄 60 岁±11 岁)。CT 血管造影组(84.3 mL/min/1.73 m±17.2)和导管组(87.1 mL/min/1.73 m±16.7)的基线 eGFR 无差异( =.14)。CT 血管造影组有 9 名(5.6%)参与者和导管组有 21 名(13.2%)参与者发生 AKI(相对风险,2.4;95%CI:1.1,5.0; =.02)。在没有阻塞性 CAD 的亚组中,在不需要冠状动脉介入治疗的患者中,导管组 AKI 更常见(11.9%;95%CI:8%,19%),而 CT 血管造影组(4.3% [95%CI:2%,9%];差异,7.7% [95%CI:1.3%,14.1%];相对风险,2.8 [95%CI:1.1,7.0]; =.02)。阻塞性 CAD(比值比 [OR]:2.7 [95%CI:1.1, 6.6]; =.02)、股动脉入路(OR:2.5 [95%CI:1.1, 5.6]; =.04)和电影心室造影与 AKI 相关(OR:2.3 [95%CI:1.0, 4.9]; =.03)。多变量分析显示,造影后 AKI 与慢性肾脏病有关(风险比:12.4 [95%CI:4.5, 34.6]; <.01)。
结论 在这项对疑似患有 CAD 的患者进行的前瞻性随机研究中,与 CT 血管造影相比,经导管冠状动脉造影后 AKI 更常见。
©RSNA,2019 也可参见本期 Einstein 和 Newhouse 的社论。