MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1970143381 · doi:10.1159/000369295

Renoprevention Revisited - The Impact of Preemptive Withdrawal of RAAS Blockade prior to Iodinated Contrast Exposure in Older CKD Patients: Results of a New Meta-Analysis

2014· review· en· W1970143381 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Macaulay Onuigbo

Notice bibliographique

RevueCardiology · 2014
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Kidney Injury Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNorthwestern UniversityMayo Clinic
Mots-clésMedicineDiscontinuationBlockadeKidney diseaseContrast-induced nephropathyIodinated contrastDialysisInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Acute kidney injuryNephropathyUrologyEndocrinologySurgeryReceptor

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the third leading cause of new-onset acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized patients in the USA [1]. Furthermore, AKI from CIN needing dialysis portends increased inhospital mortality approaching 40%, together with a low 2-year survival of <20% [2,3]. Nevertheless, the role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blocking agents, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in the pathophysiology of CIN remains controversial as the available literature is conflicting and discordant [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Whereas some reports suggest that prior initiation of RAAS blockade before iodinated contrast exposure mitigates the severity and incidence of CIN [4,5], others show exactly the opposite effect, i.e. that concurrent RAAS blockade in fact exacerbates these [6,7,8,9,10]. Furthermore, discontinuation of RAAS blockade before the exposure can reduce the incidence and severity of CIN [10,11]. Indeed, Komenda et al. [10 ]reported a prospective Canadian case series on 31 chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, with a mean age of 64 years and mean eGFR of 34 ml/min/1.73 m2. All patients received iodinated contrast and had ACEI, ARB and diuretics withheld 1 day before iodinated contrast exposure and restarted 2 days afterwards. Their study demonstrated stable renal outcomes for up to 26 months after the contrast exposure, with no change in CKD stage when compared with historical controls [10]. It is to be noted that in selected patients in this study, amlodipine (5 mg/day) was substituted to control hypertension [10]. It is against this background that we read with excitement the recent meta-analysis by Jo et al. [12 ]on the impact of RAAS blockade on CIN. This meta-analysis of 12 studies involved 4,493 patients [12]. This report represented the largest such meta-analysis on the effects of concurrent angiotensin inhibition on contrast-induced nephropathy. The methodology, particularly the disparate statistical subgroup analysis distinguishing between the different ACEI/ARB study patient ‘phenotypes', was very commendable [12]. The major findings, i.e. that ACEI/ARB discontinuation in chronic users before iodinated contrast exposure is associated with less deterioration of renal function but that acute preprocedure intervention with ACEI/ARB therapy in drug-naïve patients did not affect the incidence of CIN, should receive stronger positive acknowledgement from the nephrology and general medicine community [12]. This care model or paradigm is very much in line with one of our touted measures of ‘renoprevention' as we have repeatedly reported from our Mayo Clinic Health System Unit here in northwestern Wisconsin [13,14].Once again, the meta-analysis by Jo et al. [12] touted the preemptive temporary discontinuation of ACEI/ARB prior to iodinated contrast administration in older CKD patients to limit the severity and incidence of CIN [12]. In the last few years, we have continued to tout the concept of renoprevention [13,14]. By ‘renoprevention', we mean all the preventative practices that would potentially eliminate or at least alleviate the incidence of AKI in (especially older) CKD patients [13,14]. Prevention is indeed better than cure [13,14]. Except for the institution of renal replacement therapy, modern medicine has yet to devise a cure for AKI. Undeniably, at least for now, no specific pharmacologic therapy is effective in patients with established AKI, and the care of such patients is limited to supportive treatment and, of course, renal replacement therapy when indicated [15]. We support the increasing application of the principles of ‘renoprevention' which would include the deliberate protocolized prevention or rapid correction of perioperative hypotension, together with the deliberate preemptive withdrawal or avoidance of all potential nephrotoxic exposures in the perioperative period, before the administration of iodinated contrast and during concurrent serious illnesses [13,14,15,16,17]. Such nephrotoxic exposures would include diuretics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ACEI/ARB and aminoglycosides among others [13,14,15,16].

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,294
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0110,005
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,070
Tête enseignante GPT0,411
Écart entre enseignants0,341 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCardiologyMême sujetAcute Kidney Injury ResearchTravaux en français237 207