Wagner Gernot, Glechner Anna, Persad Emma, Klerings Irma, Gartlehner Gerald, Moertl Deddo, Steiner Sabine
Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30, 3500 Krems, Austria.
RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, USA.
J Clin Med. 2022 Dec 4;11(23):7203. doi: 10.3390/jcm11237203.
The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the comparative evidence on the risk of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) with CO or iodinated contrast medium (ICM) for peripheral vascular interventions. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Epistemonikos, PubMed-similar-articles, clinical trial registries, journal websites, and reference lists up to February 2022. We included studies comparing the risk of CA-AKI in patients who received CO or ICM for peripheral angiography with or without endovascular intervention. Two reviewers screened the references and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We extracted data on study population, interventions and outcomes. For the risk of CA-AKI as our primary outcome of interest, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and performed random-effects meta-analyses. We identified three RCTs and five cohort studies that fully met our eligibility criteria. Based on a random-effects meta-analysis, the risk of CA-AKI was lower with CO compared to ICM (8.6% vs. 15.2%; RR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.04). Only limited results from a few studies were available on procedure and fluoroscopy time, radiation dose and CO-related adverse events. The evidence suggests that the use of CO for peripheral vascular interventions reduces the risk of CA-AKI compared to ICM. However, due to the relevant residual risk of CA-AKI with the use of CO, other AKI risk factors must be considered in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions.
本系统评价的目的是总结关于外周血管介入中使用二氧化碳(CO)或碘化造影剂(ICM)发生对比剂相关急性肾损伤(CA-AKI)风险的比较证据。我们检索了Ovid MEDLINE、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、Epistemonikos、PubMed类似文章、临床试验注册库、期刊网站以及截至2022年2月的参考文献列表。我们纳入了比较接受CO或ICM进行外周血管造影(无论有无血管内介入)的患者发生CA-AKI风险的研究。两名研究者筛选参考文献并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们提取了关于研究人群、干预措施和结局的数据。对于作为我们主要关注结局的CA-AKI风险,我们计算了风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI),并进行随机效应荟萃分析。我们确定了三项随机对照试验(RCT)和五项队列研究完全符合我们的纳入标准。基于随机效应荟萃分析,与ICM相比,CO导致CA-AKI的风险更低(8.6%对15.2%;RR,0.59;95%CI 0.33 - 1.04)。关于操作和透视时间、辐射剂量以及与CO相关的不良事件,仅有少数研究提供了有限的结果。证据表明,在外周血管介入中使用CO与ICM相比可降低CA-AKI的风险。然而,由于使用CO仍存在CA-AKI的相关残余风险,在外周血管介入患者中必须考虑其他急性肾损伤风险因素。