Meta-analysis of prophylactic hydration versus no hydration on contrast-induced acute kidney injury

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background

Guidelines recommend prophylactic hydration for all patients with compromised renal function undergoing contrast exposure. However, the AMACING study published recently showed a noninferior result of hydration compared with no prophylaxis in high-risk patients and led to a heat discussion. This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of prophylactic hydration in different subsets of patients undergoing a contrast procedure.

Methods

We carried out a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials to assess pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incidences of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI), in-hospital all-cause mortality, and need for dialysis.

Results

Compared with no prophylaxis, patients receiving prophylactic hydration had a lower risk of CI-AKI [RR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.55–0.79); P≤0.001; Pheterogeneity=0.42] and a lower risk of deaths of all-cause [RR: 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33–0.98); P=0.04; Pheterogeneity=0.47], but did not have a decreased risk of need for dialysis [RR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.12–1.23); P=0.11; Pheterogeneity=0.31]. In subgroup analyses on the incidence of CI-AKI by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), no benefit from prophylactic hydration was indicated in patients with a baseline eGFR ranging from 30 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 [RR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.66–1.60); Pheterogeneity=0.66; Pinteraction=0.03].

Conclusion

Our analysis indicated that prophylactic hydration was associated with a lower risk of CI-AKI and all-cause deaths, but not with the need for dialysis in the overall population. However, no prophylactic hydration is noninferior to intravenous hydration on the incidence of CI-AKI in patients with a baseline eGFR ranging from 30 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m2.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles