Long-term safety of withholding standard prophylaxis in patients with moderate chronic kidney disease.

In the latest ESUR contrast media guidelines, standard prophylaxis is no longer recommended for patients with moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the absence of solid evidence, guideline updates are often based on indirect evidence and expert opinion. Likewise, evidence supporting the withdrawal of standard prophylaxis in moderate CKD patients was scarce and mostly indirect, but did include one randomised controlled trial evaluating guideline-recommended standard prophylactic intravenous hydration against a group receiving no prophylaxis (A MAastricht Contrast-Induced Nephropathy Guideline (AMACING) trial). Since then, benefits of the updated guideline recommendation for patient and hospital burden have been numerated and were shown to be substantial. The current special report provides data on long-term safety from the AMACING randomised controlled trial. KEY POINTS: • In the latest version of ESUR clinical practice guidelines for safe use of contrast media, standard prophylaxis is no longer recommended for patients with moderate chronic kidney disease. • Benefits of this change in recommendations for patient and hospital burden have been numerated. The current report provides data on long-term safety from the AMACING randomised controlled trial. • No disadvantage of withholding prophylaxis could be discerned. Results suggest that, in this population, underlying disease is more relevant for survival and prognosis than contrast administration itself.

Impact on clinical practice of updated guidelines on iodinated contrast material: CINART.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines on safe use of iodinated contrast material recommend intravenous prophylactic hydration to prevent post-contrast adverse (renal) effects. Recently, guidelines have been updated and standard prophylaxis is no longer recommended for the majority of patients. The current study aims to evaluate the consequences for clinical practice of the updated guidelines in terms of complications, hospitalisations, and costs. METHODS: The Contrast-Induced Nephropathy After Reduction of the prophylaxis Threshold (CINART) project is a retrospective observational study. All elective procedures with intravascular iodinated contrast administration at Maastricht University Medical Centre (UMC+) in patients aged > 18 years, formerly eligible for prophylaxis (eGFR 30-44 ml/min/1.73 m2 or eGFR 45-59 ml/min/1.73 m2 in combination with diabetes or > 1 predefined risk factor), and currently eligible for prophylaxis (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) were included. Data were used to calculate relative reductions in complications, hospitalisations, and costs associated with standard prophylactic intravenous hydration. CINART is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03227835. RESULTS: Between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018, 1992 elective procedures with intravascular iodinated contrast in patients formerly and currently eligible for prophylaxis were identified: 1808 in patients formerly eligible for prophylaxis and 184 in patients currently eligible for prophylaxis. At Maastricht UMC+, guideline updates led to large relative reductions in numbers of complications of prophylaxis (e.g. symptomatic heart failure; - 89%), extra hospitalisations (- 93%), and costs (- 91%). CONCLUSION: Guideline updates have had a demonstrable impact on daily clinical practice benefiting patient, hospital, and health care budgets. Clinical practice varies between institutions and countries; therefore, a local estimation model is provided with which local impact on costs, hospitalisations, and complications can be calculated. KEY POINTS: • Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylactic intravenous hydration to prevent post-contrast adverse outcomes such as contrast-induced acute kidney injury. • Clinical practice guidelines have recently been updated, and standard prophylaxis is no longer recommended for the majority of patients. • The guideline updates have a large impact on daily clinical practice: relative reductions at Maastricht UMC+ were - 89% prophylaxis complications, - 93% hospitalisations, and - 91% costs, and similar reductions are expected for Dutch and adherent European medical centres.

[Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): a prospective, randomised, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial]. / Preventieve intraveneuze hydratie ter voorkoming van contrastnefropathie helpt niet.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous saline is recommended in clinical practice guidelines as the cornerstone for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with compromised renal function. However, clinical-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic hydration treatment in protecting renal function has not been adequately studied in the population targeted by the guidelines, against a group receiving no prophylaxis. This was the aim of the AMACING trial. METHODS: AMACING is a prospective, randomised, phase 3, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority trial of patients at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy according to current guidelines. High-risk patients (with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 30-59 mL per min/1·73 m²) aged 18 years and older, undergoing an elective procedure requiring iodinated contrast material administration at Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous 0·9% NaCl or no prophylaxis. We excluded patients with eGFR lower than 30 mL per min/1·73 m², previous dialysis, or no referral for intravenous hydration. Randomisation was stratified by predefined risk factors. The primary outcome was incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy, defined as an increase in serum creatinine from baseline of more than 25% or 44 µmol/L within 2-6 days of contrast exposure, and cost-effectiveness of no prophylaxis compared with intravenous hydration in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. We measured serum creatinine immediately before, 2-6 days, and 26-35 days after contrast-material exposure. Laboratory personnel were masked to treatment allocation. Adverse events and use of resources were systematically recorded. The non-inferiority margin was set at 2·1%. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02106234. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2014, and July 17, 2016, 660 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive no prophylaxis (n=332) or intravenous hydration (n=328). 2-6 day serum creatinine was available for 307 (92%) of 332 patients in the no prophylaxis group and 296 (90%) of 328 patients in the intravenous hydration group. Contrast-induced nephropathy was recorded in eight (2·6%) of 307 non-hydrated patients and in eight (2·7%) of 296 hydrated patients. The absolute difference (no hydration vs hydration) was -0·10% (one-sided 95% CI -2·25 to 2·06; one-tailed p=0·4710). No hydration was cost-saving relative to hydration. No haemodialysis or related deaths occurred within 35 days. 18 (5·5%) of 328 patients had complications associated with intravenous hydration. INTERPRETATION: We found no prophylaxis to be non-inferior and cost-saving in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy compared with intravenous hydration according to current clinical practice guidelines.

Assessing the Risk of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy Using a Finger Stick Analysis in Recalls from Breast Screening: The CINFIBS Explorative Study.

Purpose: To evaluate whether a handheld point-of-care (POC) device is able to predict and discriminate patients at potential risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) prior to iodine-based contrast media delivery. Methods and Materials: Between December 2014 and June 2016, women undergoing contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) with an iodine-based contrast agent were asked to have their risk of CIN assessed by a dedicated POC device (StatSensor CREAT) and a risk factor questionnaire based on national guidelines. Prior to contrast injection, a venous blood sample was drawn to compare the results of POC with regular laboratory testing. Results: A total of 351 patients were included; 344 were finally categorized as low risk patients by blood creatinine evaluation. Seven patients had a eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, necessitating additional preparation prior to contrast delivery. The POC device failed to categorize six out of seven patients (86%), leading to (at that stage) unwanted contrast administration. Two patients subsequently developed CIN after 2-5 days, which was self-limiting after 30 days. Conclusion: The POC device tested was not able to reliably assess impairment of renal function in our patient cohort undergoing CESM. Consequently, we still consider classic clinical laboratory testing preferable in patients at potential risk for developing CIN.