You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Diagnostics
  • Review
  • Open Access

2 May 2020

Acute Renal Failure/Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) Associated with Endovascular Procedures

,
,
and
1
Department of Vascular, Endovascular Surgery, Angiology and Phlebology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-848 Poznan, Poland
2
Department of Hypertension, Angiology and Internal Disease, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-848 Poznan, Poland
3
Department of Nephrology, Transplantology and Internal Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-355 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract

AKI is one of the most common yet underdiagnosed postoperative complications that can occur after any type of surgery. Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is still poorly defined and due to a wide range of confounding individual variables, its risk is difficult to determine. CIN mainly affects patients with underlying chronic kidney disease, diabetes, sepsis, heart failure, acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock. Further research is necessary to better understand pathophysiology of contrast-induced AKI and consequent implementation of effective prevention and therapeutic strategies. Although many therapies have been tested to avoid CIN, the only potent preventative strategy involves aggressive fluid administration and reduction of contrast volume. Regardless of surgical technique—open or endovascular—perioperative AKI is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and cost. Endovascular procedures always require administration of a contrast media, which may cause acute tubular necrosis or renal vascular embolization leading to renal ischemia and as a consequence, contribute to increased number of post-operative AKIs.

1. Acute Kidney Injury

The kidney disease: improving global outcomes (KDIGO) group classification was proposed on the basis of the risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function and end-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) 4 in 2012 [1,2,3,4]. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was defined as an increase of the serum creatinine (SCr) level exceeding 0.3 mg/dL within 48 h or an increase in SCr to 1.5 times the baseline value within 7 days or a urine output less than 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 h. KDIGO also classifies patients initiating renal replacement therapy (RRT) into stage 3 AKI, but removes the threshold of a 0.5 mg/dL increment for SCr > 4 mg/dL in the criteria of stage 3 AKI. The comparison of the definitions is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of RIFLE and KDIGO classifications.
Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is still poorly defined and its risk is difficult to determine due to a wide range of confounding individual variables. CIN has been traditionally defined by an absolute increase equal to or greater than 0.5 mg/dL (44 μmol/L) or an increase of at least 25% in serum creatinine levels sustained for two to five days in the absence of other identifiable causes starting within 48 to 72 h of the intravenous administration of an iodinated contrast agent [1,2,3,4]. CIN mainly affects patients with underlying chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes, sepsis, heart failure, acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock. Moreover, it is associated with the progression of renal dysfunction, the requirement of dialysis, extended hospitalization, increased expenses and high mortality [4,5,6,7]. Many studies have shown an increased risk of AKI from CIN (Contrast-induced acute kidney injury-CIAKI). High-osmolar contrast media (CM) are unfavorable for routine intravascular injections due to high rates of adverse reactions, low biocompatibility and the biologic effects associated with hypertonicity [8]. Developed in 1974, next-generation low-osmolality CM are associated with fewer adverse reactions and improved tolerability. The osmolality is hypertonic when compared to average serum osmolality of 280–300 mOsm/kg, ranging from 780 to 800 mOsm/kg. In 1996, an iso-osmolar contrast iodixanol was developed. However, the use of it is reserved only for high-risk patients because of high cost and low risk of second-generation low-osmolality contrast agents nephrotoxicity in the general population (they are used in most scientific studies) [9]. CIAKI manifested as a sudden, but potentially reversible decline of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) typically occurs 48–72 h after CM infusion [7]. The pathogenesis of CIAKI is heterogeneous and, thus, is not entirely understood [7]. Three basic mechanisms appear at the same time for CIAKI development: A) renal vasoconstriction and B) medullary hypoxia, tubular cell toxicity and C) reactive oxygen species formation. The relative contribution of each of these mechanisms is unclear, but they eventually lead to epithelial and endothelial cell apoptosis and consequently GFR reduction.
AKI is one of the most common albeit underdiagnosed postoperative complication which may occur after any type of surgery. Despite the progression of surgical techniques (including endovascular procedures) its incidence is rising proportionally to the number of performed operations. Notwithstanding the advancement of endovascular methods, classic ion contrast is widely used nevertheless, posing a greater risk of AKI in intra-arterial interventions as it requires higher doses of iodized agents than in diagnostic CT–angio. Analysis of Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services data demonstrate that between 1996 and 2011, the rate of lower extremity endovascular interventions increased from 138 to 584 interventions per 100,000 patients [10]. Contrast administration during endovascular diagnostic or therapeutic procedures is one of the major causes of AKI and the third leading cause of hospital acquired renal failure in the United States. Over 50% of these cases are the result of contrast exposure during cardiac catheterization, however, this number does not include post-contrast AKI following angiography or endovascular interventions for peripheral artery disease (PAD) [11].

2. Contrast-Induced Nephropathy

Nephrotoxicity has been observed in many cases of iodinated contrast use, however, the definition of CIN is still unclear. Fang et al. in 1980 symptoms such as oliguria, increased serum creatinine and decreases in fractional excretion of urinary sodium [12]. Depending on the definition adopted for CIN and the characteristics of the studied population, the incidence of CIN ranges from 10% to 30% [13,14,15,16,17]. Some authors have found that CIN is the third most common cause of hospital-acquired AKI [13]. Historically, the diagnosis of CIN and CIAKI have been confused; while CIN presupposes causality, CIAKI may signify CIN or AKI concomitant to the use of iodinated contrast instead of being caused by it [18]. Most published clinical studies use the two terms interchangeably and do not include control groups in their series, which raises questions concerning the actual incidence of CIN as well as the acute and chronic impacts on renal function introduced by the use of iodinated CM [18]. Therefore, any change in serum creatinine level that meets the defined threshold for post-contrast AKI is diagnosed as CIN. In some groups of patients, AKI can lead to permanent as well as increased morbidity and mortality [13,17]. Only a few studies have assessed the increased risk of CIN following intravenous administration, and most studies have not included a control group of patients who were not exposed to intravascular CM [19]. Davenport et al. claimed that intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material is an important independent risk factor for post-computer tomography (CT) AKI, but not in patients with a stable serum creatinine level lower than 1.5 mg/dL (132.60 mmoL/L) [20]. This relationship strengthens with increasing pre-CT serum creatinine [20]. Newhouse et al. analyzed over 3081 publications, but only 40 of them (1.3%) included patients who received contrast intravenously [21]. Many of these studies were simply observational or retrospective studies, obtaining data from medical databases. These studies include confounding variables, such as sepsis, critical illness requiring intensive care, pre-existing diabetes, hypertension, CKD or cardiovascular disease [9]. Should be noted that the manner of contrast administration, such as intravenous vs. intra-arterial and volume (dose) of contrast used are also risk factors for CIN. There is much controversy in medical literature regarding the incidence of CIN [22]. A recent publication that addresses CIN risk by Wilhelm–Leen et al. used administrative data obtained from a 2009 subset of an inpatient care database with 8 million hospitalizations per year [22]. The study contained data from a cohort of 5.9 million that included many disease states, such as congestive heart failure, infection, acute pancreatitis and gastrointestinal bleeding. The patients who received iodinated contrast were matched with those who did not receive contrast and the risk of AKI was determined by statistical analysis. The risk of AKI was also determined when disease states were stratified. The authors found that the risk of AKI in patients receiving and those not receiving radiocontrast was nearly identical (5.5% vs. 5.6%, respectively). Data from disease-specific strata revealed that the risk of AKI was lower in those with acute coronary syndrome. This may be explained by the fact that those deemed to be at the highest risk of AKI are treated in order to minimize the risk. In cases of pancreatitis, the risk of AKI doubles with contrast exposure, but this increase may be attributed to other causes. The rates of AKI, death and dialysis within 30 days of imaging were relatively similar to previous reports and did not differ significantly between the contrast and non-contrast groups. The authors assumed that the risk of CIN may be lower than anticipated by clinicians, but they also admitted that the relationship “between radiocontrast administration and AKI is highly confounded, unpredictable and sometimes bidirectional” [22]. Clinicians admit that the risk of CIN is “likely low, but not likely zero” [22]. On the other hand, there are many other factors that contribute to the development of post-CT AKI, and not all cases of post-CT AKI are due to CIN [20]. These factors likely account for the equivalence in post-CT AKI rates after unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT shown in some studies [23,24,25]. If these factors are not controlled, it is impossible to isolate the role of contrast material in the development of post-CT AKI [20].

3. Risk Factors of Post-Contrast AKI

The main risk factors for AKI include coexisting: a) diabetic nephropathy, b) advanced age (>75 years), c) congestive heart failure, d) volume depletion, e) hyperuricemia, f) proteinuria and g) high or recurrent exposure to CM. Concomitant use of NSAIDs, ACE inhibitors, diuretics or other nephrotoxic agents may further increase that risk. Among patients undergoing vascular surgery, AKI rates range from 5.9% after endovascular renal surgery, 12.7% for lower limb surgery and up to 48% for aortic arch surgery [26,27,28]. The incidence of AKI following major vascular surgery using the current criteria has been reported to be as high as 49% across a cohort of all vascular surgery patients, though there are significant differences depending on the type of procedure performed [29]. Thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures (endovascular as well as open surgical repair (OSR)) carry a higher risk of AKI than peripheral vascular operations. Peripheral vascular procedures have some of the lowest rates, from 4% for patients undergoing infrainguinal lower extremity bypass, up to 19% for endovascular revascularization of critical limb ischemia [26,30,31,32].
It seems that the other factors, related to endovascular surgery itself, e.g., vascular area of the vessel/its diameter—(aorta vs. limb arteries, thoracic aorta and arch vs. abdominal aorta), complexity of the procedure/duration of the procedure (simple stent grafts vs. branched or fenestrated devices) (Table 2), acute vs. planned procedures, critical procedures anemia vs. stop claudication, contribute substantially to the development of AKI [33,34,35,36,37,38]. Preoperative risk assessment and optimal perioperative management can minimize postoperative complications, e.g., AKI. Adherence to a standardized perioperative pathway designed to reduce risk of AKI after major vascular surgeries offers a promising clinical approach to mitigate the incidence and severity of this challenging clinical problem [36].
Table 2. Incidence of AKI by anatomic location of vascular procedure [26,30,31,32,37,38].

4. Coronary Angiography or Angioplasty

AKI is a common complication (Table 3) after diagnostic and therapeutic coronary procedures and is independently associated with adverse outcomes [39]. It has been shown that intra-arterial compared with intravenous CM administration may be linked to a greater risk of CIN, although the mechanism of this phenomenon is not clear [40,41]. The development of AKI in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is mainly related to older age, baseline eGFR, heart failure and hemodynamic instability [42]. However risk of AKI is similar between ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients with and without contrast medium exposure [42]. Patients undergoing coronary angiography and PCI present an increased risk of CIN especially in the setting of urgent intervention [5,6], at which time high doses of CM are usually administered and a strong relationship between contrast volume and a risk of CIN is noticeable [5,6].
Table 3. AKI in patients undergoing PCI/coronary angiography.
Therefore, invasive cardiologists ought to seek anatomic landmarks (particularly calcifications) to navigate their interventions without contrast usage, during both angiography and PCI. Furthermore, low volume injections with subsequent evacuation of unused contrast from catheters may improve patients’ outcomes and therefore must become a standard procedure [39]. Adequate hydration with intravenous saline infusion before and after intervention are key preventive approaches with regard to CIN [4].
AKI is a common complication occurring in the ∼600,000 patients who undergo PCI in the United States annually [51]. Despite improvements in PCI safety and outcomes, post-PCI contrast-induced AKI, remains common, occurring in almost 7% of patients [6,52,53]. Further, AKI is an independent risk factor for mortality [54,55,56,57,58] and nonrenal complications such as bleeding, sepsis [59] nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke [60,61,62]. More direct complications of AKI include volume overload, hyperkalemia and progression to ESRD [6,51,63].
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an established method for treating severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients who are poor candidates for open surgical procedure. As such, patients admitted for TAVI have considerable comorbidities making them especially vulnerable to a large number of periprocedural and postprocedural complications. In previous studies, up to 66% of patients who underwent the procedure experienced at least a moderate reduction in renal function [64,65,66]. Following TAVI, a further decrease in renal function commonly occurs, affecting 15%–40% of all patients and has proven to be predictive of several-fold increase in both short-term and long-term mortality [65,67,68,69]. The definition of worsening renal function has varied over time, albeit, the most commonly used definition for patients undergoing valve implantations is currently the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria, in which a mild (26 mmoL/L) increase in creatinine within seven days identifies patients with AKI [70,71].
Recently, new strategies dedicated to the reduction of contrast volume have been proposed, and these appear to be promising in the battle against CIN [72,73,74,75]. Finally, wider use of intravascular imaging techniques (especially IVUS) should decrease injected contrast volume and improve PCI results [39]. Recently, Azzalini et al. published results of multicenter registry which included patients with chronic total occlusion who underwent PCI. CIAKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine ≥ 0.3 mg/dL or ≥ 50% from baseline within 72 h [76]. Study endpoints were CIAKI, and all-cause death and target-lesion failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction or target-lesion revascularization) on follow-up [76]. Study population included 1092 patients (CKD n = 214, no CKD n = 878). Patients with CKD had more comorbidities as well as adverse angiographic features compared with subjects without CKD [76]. Patients with CKD experienced lower technical (79% vs. 87%, p = 0.001) and procedural (79% vs. 86%, p = 0.008) success rates. CI-AKI developed in 9.1% (CKD 15.0% vs. no CKD 7.8%, p = 0.001) [76]. Rates of in-hospital need for dialysis were 0.5% vs. 0%, respectively (p = 0.03). Patients with CKD had higher 24-month rates of all-cause death (11.2% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001) and new need for dialysis (1.1% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.03), but similar TLF rates (12.4% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.47) [76]. CIAKI was not an independent predictor of all-cause death or target-lesion failure [76]. In the last study, Azzalini et al. included 111 patients (ultra-low contrast PCI group (UL-PCI), n = 8; conventional group, n = 103) [77]. Contrast volume (8.8 mL; interquartile range, 1.3–18.5) vs. 90 mL (interquartile range, 58–140 mL); p < 0.001) was markedly lower in the UL-PCI group [77]. Technical success was achieved in all UL-PCI procedures; in seven out of eight cases (88%), the UL-PCI protocol was also successful (contrast volume to eGFR ratio < 1) [77]. The incidence of CIAKI was 0% vs. 15.5% in the UL-PCI and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.28). An ultra-low contrast PCI protocol in patients with advanced CKD is feasible, appears to be safe and has the potential to decrease the incidence of CIAKI, compared with angiographic guidance alone [77]. Sacha et al. presented a new concept for the use of the zero-contrast approach is the protection of residual renal function in hemodialysis patients undergoing coronary interventions [78,79]. Zero-PCI was feasible in each intended patient, including those with complex left main stenosis or lesion within a saphenous vein graft, and there was no specific complication associated with this technique [79]. After the procedure, the factual AKI prevalence was 10% and no patient required renal replacement therapy [79]. Three out of four hemodialysis patients preserved their residual renal function [79]. During the median follow-up of 3.2 (1.2–5.3) months no patient experienced an acute coronary event or required revascularization [79]. The residual renal function is a prognostic and independent factor of quality of life, morbidity and survival in dialysis patients and therefore every protective measure to preserve this function is important [80,81,82].

6. Peripheral Vascular Intervention

The continuous development of endovascular surgery and increasing use in peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) method in managing different peripheral vascular diseases should direct our awareness to the incidence of AKI related to those procedures (Table 4), its risk factors and predictors of long-term consequences of AKI in this group of patients. In the meta-analysis by Prasad et al. analyzed 65 studies which included 11,311 patients with 10,316 peripheral procedures performed, where median incidence of AKI was 10% [115]. Authors highlighted significant variations in patient risk factors, definitions of AKI and specificity of description of endovascular therapies. In patients with peripheral vascular disease, there is often ischemic renal disease and preoperative reduction in eGFR is the strongest predictor of post-operative AKI. Administration of radiocontrast during endovascular procedures for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) may cause AKI.
Table 4. Prospective randomized studies on AKI in patients undergoing lower extremity angiography and/or endovascular therapy for peripheral artery disease (PAD).
Al Adas et al. analyzed AKI in patients after peripheral interventions. Only patients who developed AKI, which was defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of > 0.5 mg/dL within 30 days after intervention, were included (881 pts) [122]. In this group, 57 patients (6.5%) developed AKI; 47% were male and 51% had baseline CKD. AKI resolved by discharge in 30 patients (53%). Using multivariate linear regression, male sex (p = 0.027) and congestive heart failure (p = 0.048) were associated with 1-year GFR decline. Periprocedural variables related to 1-year GFR decline included percentage increase in 30-day post procedural creatinine concentration (p = 0.025), whereas CIN resolution by discharge (mean, 13.1 days) was protective for renal function at 1-year observation (p = 0.02) [122]. Retrospective observational cohort study by Sigterman et al. includes all patients who newly presented to the vascular surgery outpatient clinic with Rutherford class II or III PAD and who were treated with either supervised exercise therapy or endovascular interventions [123]. Changes in eGFR after one year were compared between the two treatment groups. Authors showed that after one year, eGFR was reduced by 8.6 mL/min (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3–9.9, p < 0.001) in endovascular intervention group (n = 284) and by 1.7 mL/min (95% CI, 0.9–25, p < 0.001) in supervised exercise therapy group (n = 299) [123]. After correction of potential confounders, endovascular interventions were associated with 9.2 mL/min (95% CI, 5.9–12.4, p < 0.001) higher renal decline compared to exercise therapy. Similar results were found in the propensity score-matched paired analysis. The authors concluded that endovascular procedures for PAD are associated with clinically relevant and long-term loss of kidney function [32,123]. Prasad et al. published a meta-analysis of 20 studies that included data on patients undergoing either peripheral angiography or interventions [115]. The rates of reported AKI varied among the 15 studies, ranging from 0% to 45%, with a median of 10.0% and an average of 11.2% ± 10.0%. Seven studies with at least 200 procedures had an average incidence of 9.3% ± 2.3% and median incidence of 10.0%. An attempt to replace iodine with CO2 contrasts to avoid AKI was the subject of a meta-analysis by Ghumman et al. [124]. Compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) versus iodinated CM, CO2 was associated with a lower incidence of AKI (4.3% vs. 11.1%; OR 0.465, 95% CI: 0.218–0.992; p = 0.048). Subgroup analysis of four studies that included granular data for patients with CKD did not demonstrate lower incidence of AKI with CO2 (4.1% vs. 10.0%; OR 0.449, 95% CI: 0.165–1.221, p = 0.117). Patients undergoing CO2 angiography experienced a higher number of nonrenal events including limb/abdominal pain (11 vs. 0; p = 0.001) and nausea/vomiting (9 vs. 1; p = 0.006). In studies that use CO2 as the primary imaging agent, the average incidence of AKI remained high at 6.2%—supporting the concept that factors other than renal toxicity of iodinated CM may contribute to renal impairment following peripheral angiography [124].
It demands notice that symptomatic lower extremity PAD patients may have heterogeneous presentations ranging from mild claudication to rest pain or tissue loss. Patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), arguably the most severe form of PAD, have a significant burden of AKI risk factors [125]. The rates of diabetes and CKD in unselected studies of the CLI population have been reported to be 30%–60% and 10%–40%, respectively [115]. Patients with CLI and tissue loss are also exposed to additional nephrotoxic agents such as antibiotic therapy which may add up to adverse effect on renal function [115]. Furthermore, patients with LE-PAD may also have an often overlooked risk factor for adverse renal outcomes, namely a high prevalence of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (30%–40% published prevalence) [126]. Studies by Arora et al. proved the significant role of other risk factors of AKI in patients undergoing treatment due to PAD [31,127]. The authors noted AKI rate of 11% in the endovascular arm and 12.7% in the surgical arm of the study (p = 0.33) [31,127].

7. Summary

This article hopes to summarize the principles of these approaches and help share them among the interventional community. The definition of AKI, previously known as acute renal failure, was quantified by the RIFLE criteria (risk, injury, failure, loss and end-stage) according to the KDQI group consensus and represents the latest concept adopted to ensure early detection of kidney damage [128]. CIAKI poses a serious health problem because it is a very common cause of hospital acquired AKI, linked to increased morbidity and mortality and utilizing growing healthcare resources. Further research is necessary to better understand pathophysiology of CIAKI and consequent implementation of effective prevention and therapeutic strategies (Table 5). Although many therapies have been tested to avoid CIN, the only potent preventative strategy involves aggressive fluid administration and reduction of contrast volume. Regardless of surgical technique, open or endovascular, perioperative renal injury is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and cost. Endovascular procedures always require administration of a CM, which may cause acute tubular necrosis or renal vascular embolization leading to renal ischemia and as a consequence, contribute to increased number of post-operative AKIs.
Table 5. Strategies recommended to prevent acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with vascular surgery.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kellum, J.A.; Lameire, N.; Group, K.A.G.W. Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury: A KDIGO summary (Part 1). Crit Care 2013, 17, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jorres, A.; John, S.; Lewington, A.; ter Wee, P.M.; Vanholder, R.; Van Biesen, W.; Tattersall, J.; ad-hoc working group of ERBP; Abramovic, D.; Cannata, J.; et al. A European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Acute Kidney Injury: Part 2: Renal replacement therapy. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 2013, 28, 2940–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ad-hoc working group of ERBP; Fliser, D.; Laville, M.; Covic, A.; Fouque, D.; Vanholder, R.; Juillard, L.; Van Biesen, W. A European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guidelines on acute kidney injury: Part 1: Definitions, conservative management and contrast-induced nephropathy. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 2012, 27, 4263–4272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Azzalini, L.; Spagnoli, V.; Ly, H.Q. Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: From Pathophysiology to Preventive Strategies. Can. J. Cardiol. 2016, 32, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mehran, R.; Aymong, E.D.; Nikolsky, E.; Lasic, Z.; Iakovou, I.; Fahy, M.; Mintz, G.S.; Lansky, A.J.; Moses, J.W.; Stone, G.W.; et al. A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: Development and initial validation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004, 44, 1393–1399. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Tsai, T.T.; Patel, U.D.; Chang, T.I.; Kennedy, K.F.; Masoudi, F.A.; Matheny, M.E.; Kosiborod, M.; Amin, A.P.; Messenger, J.C.; Rumsfeld, J.S.; et al. Contemporary incidence, predictors, and outcomes of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: Insights from the NCDR Cath-PCI registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vlachopanos, G.; Schizas, D.; Hasemaki, N.; Georgalis, A. Pathophysiology of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury (CIAKI). Curr. Pharm. Des. 2019, 25, 4642–4647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Widmark, J.M. Imaging-related medications: A class overview. Proc. (Bayl. Univ. Med. Cent.) 2007, 20, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Do, C. Intravenous Contrast: Friend or Foe? A Review on Contrast-Induced Nephropathy. Adv. Chronic. Kidney Dis. 2017, 24, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goodney, P.P.; Tarulli, M.; Faerber, A.E.; Schanzer, A.; Zwolak, R.M. Fifteen-year trends in lower limb amputation, revascularization, and preventive measures among medicare patients. JAMA Surg. 2015, 150, 84–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McCullough, P.A. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 51, 1419–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fang, L.S.; Sirota, R.A.; Ebert, T.H.; Lichtenstein, N.S. Low fractional excretion of sodium with contrast media-induced acute renal failure. Arch. Intern. Med. 1980, 140, 531–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Nash, K.; Hafeez, A.; Hou, S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am. J. Kidney Dis 2002, 39, 930–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Briguori, C.; Tavano, D.; Colombo, A. Contrast agent--associated nephrotoxicity. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2003, 45, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lakhal, K.; Ehrmann, S.; Chaari, A.; Laissy, J.P.; Regnier, B.; Wolff, M.; Pajot, O. Acute Kidney Injury Network definition of contrast-induced nephropathy in the critically ill: Incidence and outcome. J. Crit. Care 2011, 26, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gleeson, T.G.; Bulugahapitiya, S. Contrast-induced nephropathy. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004, 183, 1673–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Tublin, M.E.; Murphy, M.E.; Tessler, F.N. Current concepts in contrast media-induced nephropathy. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1998, 171, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maccariello, E. Contrast induced nephropathy. J. Bras. Nefrol. 2016, 38, 388–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rao, Q.A.; Newhouse, J.H. Risk of nephropathy after intravenous administration of contrast material: A critical literature analysis. Radiology 2006, 239, 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davenport, M.S.; Khalatbari, S.; Dillman, J.R.; Cohan, R.H.; Caoili, E.M.; Ellis, J.H. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology 2013, 267, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Newhouse, J.H.; Kho, D.; Rao, Q.A.; Starren, J. Frequency of serum creatinine changes in the absence of iodinated contrast material: Implications for studies of contrast nephrotoxicity. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008, 191, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wilhelm-Leen, E.; Montez-Rath, M.E.; Chertow, G. Estimating the Risk of Radiocontrast-Associated Nephropathy. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2017, 28, 653–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oleinik, A.; Romero, J.M.; Schwab, K.; Lev, M.H.; Jhawar, N.; Delgado Almandoz, J.E.; Smith, E.E.; Greenberg, S.M.; Rosand, J.; Goldstein, J.N. CT angiography for intracerebral hemorrhage does not increase risk of acute nephropathy. Stroke 2009, 40, 2393–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bansal, G.J.; Darby, M. Measurement of change in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with renal insufficiency after contrast-enhanced computed tomography: A case-control study. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2009, 33, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lima, F.O.; Lev, M.H.; Levy, R.A.; Silva, G.S.; Ebril, M.; de Camargo, E.C.; Pomerantz, S.; Singhal, A.B.; Greer, D.M.; Ay, H.; et al. Functional contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation of acute ischemic stroke does not increase the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2010, 31, 817–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Adalbert, S.; Adelina, M.; Romulus, T.; Flaviu Raul, B.; Bogdan, T.; Raluca, B.; Mihai, I. Acute kidney injury in peripheral arterial surgery patients: A cohort study. Ren Fail. 2013, 35, 1236–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Arnaoutakis, G.J.; Bihorac, A.; Martin, T.D.; Hess, P.J., Jr.; Klodell, C.T.; Ejaz, A.A.; Garvan, C.; Tribble, C.G.; Beaver, T.M. RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury in aortic arch surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2007, 134, 1554–1560, discussion 1560-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Takahashi, E.A.; Kallmes, D.F.; Fleming, C.J.; McDonald, R.J.; McKusick, M.A.; Bjarnason, H.; Harmsen, W.S.; Misra, S. Predictors and Outcomes of Postcontrast Acute Kidney Injury after Endovascular Renal Artery Intervention. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2017, 28, 1687–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huber, M.; Ozrazgat-Baslanti, T.; Thottakkara, P.; Efron, P.A.; Feezor, R.; Hobson, C.; Bihorac, A. Mortality and Cost of Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease after Vascular Surgery. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 30, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Flores, E.; Lewinger, J.P.; Rowe, V.L.; Woo, K.; Weaver, F.A.; Shavelle, D.; Clavijo, L.; Garg, P.K. Increased risk of mortality after lower extremity bypass in individuals with acute kidney injury in the Vascular Quality Initiative. J. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 65, 1055–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arora, P.; Davari-Farid, S.; Pourafkari, L.; Gupta, A.; Dosluoglu, H.H.; Nader, N.D. The effect of acute kidney injury after revascularization on the development of chronic kidney disease and mortality in patients with chronic limb ischemia. J. Vasc. Surg. 2015, 61, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Sigterman, T.A.; Bolt, L.J.; Krasznai, A.G.; Snoeijs, M.G.; Heijboer, R.; Schurink, G.H.; Bouwman, L.H. Loss of kidney function in patients with critical limb ischemia treated endovascularly or surgically. J. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 64, 362–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arnaoutakis, D.J.; Arnaoutakis, G.J.; Abularrage, C.J.; Beaulieu, R.J.; Shah, A.S.; Cameron, D.E.; Black, J.H., 3rd. Cohort comparison of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with open thoracic aortic repair using modern end-organ preservation strategies. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2015, 29, 882–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhu, J.C.; Chen, S.L.; Jin, G.Z.; Shao, M.X.; Kan, J.; Lu, C.Y.; Xu, H. Acute renal injury after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of Stanford type B aortic dissection: Incidence, risk factors, and prognosis. J. Formos Med. Assoc. 2014, 113, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Kabbani, L.S.; West, C.A.; Viau, D.; Nypaver, T.J.; Weaver, M.R.; Barth, C.; Lin, J.C.; Shepard, A.D. Survival after repair of pararenal and paravisceral abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 2014, 59, 1488–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schermerhorn, M.L.; O’Malley, A.J.; Landon, B.E. Long-Term Outcomes of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 2088–2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Castagno, C.; Varetto, G.; Quaglino, S.; Frola, E.; Scozzari, G.; Bert, F.; Rispoli, P. Acute kidney injury after open and endovascular elective repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 64, 928–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saratzis, A.; Melas, N.; Mahmood, A.; Sarafidis, P. Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) and Impact on Outcome. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2015, 49, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sacha, J.; Gierlotka, M.; Feusette, P.; Dudek, D. Ultra-low contrast coronary angiography and zero-contrast percutaneous coronary intervention for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: Step-by-step approach and review. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2019, 15, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Katzberg, R.W.; Barrett, B.J. Risk of iodinated contrast material--induced nephropathy with intravenous administration. Radiology 2007, 243, 622–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Owen, R.J.; Hiremath, S.; Myers, A.; Fraser-Hill, M.; Barrett, B.J. Canadian Association of Radiologists consensus guidelines for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: Update 2012. Can. Assoc. Radiol J. 2014, 65, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Caspi, O.; Habib, M.; Cohen, Y.; Kerner, A.; Roguin, A.; Abergel, E.; Boulos, M.; Kapeliovich, M.R.; Beyar, R.; Nikolsky, E.; et al. Acute Kidney Injury After Primary Angioplasty: Is Contrast-Induced Nephropathy the Culprit? J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2017, 6, e005715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hoole, S.P.; Heck, P.M.; Sharples, L.; Khan, S.N.; Duehmke, R.; Densem, C.G.; Clarke, S.C.; Shapiro, L.M.; Schofield, P.M.; O’Sullivan, M.; et al. Cardiac Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Coronary Stenting (CRISP Stent) Study: A prospective, randomized control trial. Circulation 2009, 119, 820–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Er, F.; Nia, A.M.; Dopp, H.; Hellmich, M.; Dahlem, K.M.; Caglayan, E.; Kubacki, T.; Benzing, T.; Erdmann, E.; Burst, V.; et al. Ischemic preconditioning for prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy: Randomized pilot RenPro Trial (Renal Protection Trial). Circulation 2012, 126, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Luo, S.J.; Zhou, Y.J.; Shi, D.M.; Ge, H.L.; Wang, J.L.; Liu, R.F. Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces myocardial injury in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. Can. J. Cardiol. 2013, 29, 1084–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Igarashi, G.; Iino, K.; Watanabe, H.; Ito, H. Remote ischemic pre-conditioning alleviates contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with moderate chronic kidney disease. Circ. J. 2013, 77, 3037–3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lavi, S.; D’Alfonso, S.; Diamantouros, P.; Camuglia, A.; Garg, P.; Teefy, P.; Jablonsky, G.; Sridhar, K.; Lavi, R. Remote ischemic postconditioning during percutaneous coronary interventions: Remote ischemic postconditioning-percutaneous coronary intervention randomized trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 7, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Crimi, G.; Ferlini, M.; Gallo, F.; Sormani, M.P.; Raineri, C.; Bramucci, E.; De Ferrari, G.M.; Pica, S.; Marinoni, B.; Repetto, A.; et al. Remote ischemic postconditioning as a strategy to reduce acute kidney injury during primary PCI: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial. Int. J. Cardiol. 2014, 177, 500–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Xu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Luo, S.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, M.; Ma, Q.; Gao, F.; Shen, H.; Zhang, J. Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning in the elderly patients with coronary artery disease with diabetes mellitus undergoing elective drug-eluting stent implantation. Angiology 2014, 65, 660–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yamanaka, T.; Kawai, Y.; Miyoshi, T.; Mima, T.; Takagaki, K.; Tsukuda, S.; Kazatani, Y.; Nakamura, K.; Ito, H. Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Cardiol. 2015, 178, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Writing Group, M.; Mozaffarian, D.; Benjamin, E.J.; Go, A.S.; Arnett, D.K.; Blaha, M.J.; Cushman, M.; Das, S.R.; de Ferranti, S.; Despres, J.P.; et al. Executive Summary: Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics--2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016, 133, 447–454. [Google Scholar]
  52. Amin, A.P.; Bach, R.G.; Caruso, M.L.; Kennedy, K.F.; Spertus, J.A. Association of Variation in Contrast Volume With Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA Cardiol. 2017, 2, 1007–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Tsai, T.T.; Patel, U.D.; Chang, T.I.; Kennedy, K.F.; Masoudi, F.A.; Matheny, M.E.; Kosiborod, M.; Amin, A.P.; Weintraub, W.S.; Curtis, J.P.; et al. Validated contemporary risk model of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: Insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Cath-PCI Registry. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2014, 3, e001380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Amin, A.P.; Spertus, J.A.; Reid, K.J.; Lan, X.; Buchanan, D.M.; Decker, C.; Masoudi, F.A. The prognostic importance of worsening renal function during an acute myocardial infarction on long-term mortality. Am. Heart J. 2010, 160, 1065–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chertow, G.M.; Levy, E.M.; Hammermeister, K.E.; Grover, F.; Daley, J. Independent association between acute renal failure and mortality following cardiac surgery. Am. J. Med. 1998, 104, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hou, S.H.; Bushinsky, D.A.; Wish, J.B.; Cohen, J.J.; Harrington, J.T. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency: A prospective study. Am. J. Med. 1983, 74, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Levy, E.M.; Viscoli, C.M.; Horwitz, R.I. The effect of acute renal failure on mortality. A cohort analysis. JAMA 1996, 275, 1489–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shusterman, N.; Strom, B.L.; Murray, T.G.; Morrison, G.; West, S.L.; Maislin, G. Risk factors and outcome of hospital-acquired acute renal failure. Clinical epidemiologic study. Am. J. Med. 1987, 83, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cosentino, F.; Chaff, C.; Piedmonte, M. Risk factors influencing survival in ICU acute renal failure. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 1994, 9 (Suppl. 4), 179–182. [Google Scholar]
  60. Helgason, D.; Long, T.E.; Helgadottir, S.; Palsson, R.; Sigurdsson, G.H.; Gudbjartsson, T.; Indridason, O.S.; Gudmundsdottir, I.J.; Sigurdsson, M.I. Acute kidney injury following coronary angiography: A nationwide study of incidence, risk factors and long-term outcomes. J. Nephrol. 2018, 31, 721–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. James, M.T.; Ghali, W.A.; Tonelli, M.; Faris, P.; Knudtson, M.L.; Pannu, N.; Klarenbach, S.W.; Manns, B.J.; Hemmelgarn, B.R. Acute kidney injury following coronary angiography is associated with a long-term decline in kidney function. Kidney Int. 2010, 78, 803–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Bartholomew, B.A.; Harjai, K.J.; Dukkipati, S.; Boura, J.A.; Yerkey, M.W.; Glazier, S.; Grines, C.L.; O’Neill, W.W. Impact of nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention and a method for risk stratification. Am. J. Cardiol. 2004, 93, 1515–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Gupta, R.; Gurm, H.S.; Bhatt, D.L.; Chew, D.P.; Ellis, S.G. Renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with high mortality. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2005, 64, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yamamoto, M.; Hayashida, K.; Mouillet, G.; Chevalier, B.; Meguro, K.; Watanabe, Y.; Dubois-Rande, J.L.; Morice, M.C.; Lefevre, T.; Teiger, E. Renal function-based contrast dosing predicts acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013, 6, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nuis, R.J.; Rodes-Cabau, J.; Sinning, J.M.; van Garsse, L.; Kefer, J.; Bosmans, J.; Dager, A.E.; van Mieghem, N.; Urena, M.; Nickenig, G.; et al. Blood transfusion and the risk of acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2012, 5, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Seiffert, M.; Sinning, J.M.; Meyer, A.; Wilde, S.; Conradi, L.; Vasa-Nicotera, M.; Ghanem, A.; Kempfert, J.; Hammerstingl, C.; Ojeda, F.M.; et al. Development of a risk score for outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2014, 103, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Arsalan, M.; Squiers, J.J.; Farkas, R.; Worley, C.; Herbert, M.; Stewart, W.; Brinkman, W.T.; Ungchusri, E.; Brown, D.L.; Mack, M.J.; et al. Prognostic Usefulness of Acute Kidney Injury After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Am. J. Cardiol. 2016, 117, 1327–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Barbash, I.M.; Ben-Dor, I.; Dvir, D.; Maluenda, G.; Xue, Z.; Torguson, R.; Satler, L.F.; Pichard, A.D.; Waksman, R. Incidence and predictors of acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am. Heart J. 2012, 163, 1031–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ohno, Y.; Maekawa, Y.; Miyata, H.; Inoue, S.; Ishikawa, S.; Sueyoshi, K.; Noma, S.; Kawamura, A.; Kohsaka, S.; Fukuda, K. Impact of periprocedural bleeding on incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 62, 1260–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kappetein, A.P.; Head, S.J.; Genereux, P.; Piazza, N.; van Mieghem, N.M.; Blackstone, E.H.; Brott, T.G.; Cohen, D.J.; Cutlip, D.E.; van Es, G.A.; et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 60, 1438–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kappetein, A.P.; Head, S.J.; Genereux, P.; Piazza, N.; van Mieghem, N.M.; Blackstone, E.H.; Brott, T.G.; Cohen, D.J.; Cutlip, D.E.; van Es, G.A.; et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2012, 42, S45–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ali, Z.A.; Karimi Galougahi, K.; Nazif, T.; Maehara, A.; Hardy, M.A.; Cohen, D.J.; Ratner, L.E.; Collins, M.B.; Moses, J.W.; Kirtane, A.J.; et al. Imaging- and physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention without contrast administration in advanced renal failure: A feasibility, safety, and outcome study. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 3090–3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Karimi Galougahi, K.; Zalewski, A.; Leon, M.B.; Karmpaliotis, D.; Ali, Z.A. Optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-terminal chronic kidney disease with no radio-contrast administration. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Karimi Galougahi, K.; Mintz, G.S.; Karmpaliotis, D.; Ali, Z.A. Zero-contrast percutaneous coronary intervention on calcified lesions facilitated by rotational atherectomy. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 90, E85–E89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sacha, J. Marking wire technique for zero-contrast percutaneous coronary interventions. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2018, 14, 204–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Azzalini, L.; Ojeda, S.; Demir, O.M.; Dens, J.; Tanabe, M.; La Manna, A.; Benincasa, S.; Bellini, B.; Poletti, E.; Maccagni, D.; et al. Recanalization of Chronic Total Occlusions in Patients With vs. Without Chronic Kidney Disease: The Impact of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury. Can. J. Cardiol. 2018, 34, 1275–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Azzalini, L.; Laricchia, A.; Regazzoli, D.; Mitomo, S.; Hachinohe, D.; Bellini, B.; Demir, O.M.; Poletti, E.; Maccagni, D.; Colombo, A. Ultra-Low Contrast Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Minimize the Risk for Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With Severe Chronic Kidney Disease. J. Invasive. Cardiol. 2019, 31, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sacha, J.; Feusette, P. Zero-contrast percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft in a patient with chronic renal failure. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2018, 14, 309–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sacha, J.; Gierlotka, M.; Lipski, P.; Feusette, P.; Dudek, D. Zero-contrast percutaneous coronary interventions to preserve kidney function in patients with severe renal impairment and hemodialysis subjects. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2019, 15, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. van der Wal, W.M.; Noordzij, M.; Dekker, F.W.; Boeschoten, E.W.; Krediet, R.T.; Korevaar, J.C.; Geskus, R.B.; Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis Study, G. Full loss of residual renal function causes higher mortality in dialysis patients; findings from a marginal structural model. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2011, 26, 2978–2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lee, Y.J.; Okuda, Y.; Sy, J.; Lee, Y.K.; Obi, Y.; Cho, S.; Chen, J.L.T.; Jin, A.; Rhee, C.M.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; et al. Ultrafiltration Rate, Residual Kidney Function, and Survival Among Patients Treated With Reduced-Frequency Hemodialysis. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2020, 75, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, T.; Wilcox, C.S.; Lipkowitz, M.S.; Gordon-Cappitelli, J.; Dragoi, S. Rationale and Strategies for Preserving Residual Kidney Function in Dialysis Patients. Am. J. Nephrol. 2019, 50, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zarkowsky, D.S.; Hicks, C.W.; Bostock, I.C.; Stone, D.H.; Eslami, M.; Goodney, P.P. Renal dysfunction and the associated decrease in survival after elective endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 64, 1278–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sailer, A.M.; Nelemans, P.J.; van Berlo, C.; Yazar, O.; de Haan, M.W.; Fleischmann, D.; Schurink, G.W. Endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms: Prevalence of acute kidney injury and effect on long-term renal function. Eur. Radiol. 2016, 26, 1613–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lee, J.T.; Varu, V.N.; Tran, K.; Dalman, R.L. Renal function changes after snorkel/chimney repair of juxtarenal aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 2014, 60, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. van Beek, S.C.; Legemate, D.A.; Vahl, A.; Bouman, C.S.C.; Vogt, L.; Wisselink, W.; Balm, R. Acute kidney injury defined according to the ‘Risk,’ ‘Injury,’ ‘Failure,’ ‘Loss,’ and ‘End-stage’ (RIFLE) criteria after repair for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Vasc. Surg. 2014, 60, 1159–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Reimerink, J.J.; Hoornweg, L.L.; Vahl, A.C.; Wisselink, W.; van den Broek, T.A.; Legemate, D.A.; Reekers, J.A.; Balm, R.; Amsterdam Acute Aneurysm Trial, C. Endovascular repair versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann. Surg. 2013, 258, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sasabuchi, Y.; Kimura, N.; Shiotsuka, J.; Komuro, T.; Mouri, H.; Ohnuma, T.; Asaka, K.; Lefor, A.K.; Yasunaga, H.; Yamaguchi, A.; et al. Long-Term Survival in Patients With Acute Kidney Injury After Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016, 102, 2003–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Walsh, S.R.; Tang, T.Y.; Boyle, J.R. Renal consequences of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2008, 15, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Subedi, S.K.; Lee, A.M.; Landis, G.S. Suprarenal fixation barbs can induce renal artery occlusion in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2010, 24, 113.e7–113.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lee, W.H.; Jung, G.S. Renal artery dissection during repositioning of a mal-deployed aortic endograft with suprarenal fixation. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2010, 40, 736–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  92. Walker, S.R.; Yusuf, S.W.; Wenham, P.W.; Hopkinson, B.R. Renal complications following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Endovasc. Surg. 1998, 5, 318–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Karthikesalingam, A.; Bahia, S.S.; Patel, S.R.; Azhar, B.; Jackson, D.; Cresswell, L.; Hinchliffe, R.J.; Holt, P.J.; Thompson, M.M. A systematic review and meta-analysis indicates underreporting of renal dysfunction following endovascular aneurysm repair. Kidney Int. 2015, 87, 442–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Saratzis, A.; Shakespeare, J.; Jones, O.; Bown, M.J.; Mahmood, A.; Imray, C.H.E. Pre-operative Functional Cardiovascular Reserve Is Associated with Acute Kidney Injury after Intervention. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2017, 53, 717–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Boyle, J.R. Poor Cardiac Function is Associated With Renal Injury Following EVAR. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2017, 53, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ambler, G.K.; Coughlin, P.A.; Hayes, P.D.; Varty, K.; Gohel, M.S.; Boyle, J.R. Incidence and Outcomes of Severe Renal Impairment Following Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2015, 50, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Park, B.D.; Azefor, N.; Huang, C.C.; Ricotta, J.J. Trends in treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: Impact of endovascular repair and implications for future care. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2013, 216, 745–754, discussion 754-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Saratzis, A.N.; Goodyear, S.; Sur, H.; Saedon, M.; Imray, C.; Mahmood, A. Acute kidney injury after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2013, 20, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Saratzis, A.; Nduwayo, S.; Sarafidis, P.; Sayers, R.D.; Bown, M.J. Renal Function is the Main Predictor of Acute Kidney Injury after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2016, 31, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cherr, G.S.; Hansen, K.J. Renal complications with aortic surgery. Semin Vasc. Surg. 2001, 14, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sear, J.W. Kidney dysfunction in the postoperative period. Br. J. Anaesth. 2005, 95, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Giles, K.A.; Hamdan, A.D.; Pomposelli, F.B.; Wyers, M.C.; Dahlberg, S.E.; Schermerhorn, M.L. Population-based outcomes following endovascular and open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2009, 16, 554–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Sarac, T.P.; Bannazadeh, M.; Rowan, A.F.; Bena, J.; Srivastava, S.; Eagleton, M.; Lyden, S.; Clair, D.G.; Kashyap, V. Comparative predictors of mortality for endovascular and open repair of ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 25, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Kopolovic, I.; Simmonds, K.; Duggan, S.; Ewanchuk, M.; Stollery, D.E.; Bagshaw, S.M. Risk factors and outcomes associated with acute kidney injury following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. BMC Nephrol. 2013, 14, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Greco, G.; Egorova, N.; Anderson, P.L.; Gelijns, A.; Moskowitz, A.; Nowygrod, R.; Arons, R.; McKinsey, J.; Morrissey, N.J.; Kent, K.C. Outcomes of endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 2006, 43, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mehta, M.; Taggert, J.; Darling, R.C., 3rd; Chang, B.B.; Kreienberg, P.B.; Paty, P.S.; Roddy, S.P.; Sternbach, Y.; Ozsvath, K.J.; Shah, D.M. Establishing a protocol for endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: Outcomes of a prospective analysis. J. Vasc. Surg. 2006, 44, 1–8, discussion 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bown, M.J.; Cooper, N.J.; Sutton, A.J.; Prytherch, D.; Nicholson, M.L.; Bell, P.R.; Sayers, R.D. The post-operative mortality of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2004, 27, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  108. Gordon, A.C.; Pryn, S.; Collin, J.; Gray, D.W.; Hands, L.; Garrard, C. Outcome in patients who require renal support after surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br. J. Surg. 1994, 81, 836–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Knipp, B.S.; Escobar, G.A.; English, S.; Upchurch, G.R., Jr.; Criado, E. Endovascular repair of ruptured aortic aneurysms using carbon dioxide contrast angiography. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2010, 24, 845–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, Y.H.; Liu, Y.; Tan, N.; Chen, J.Y.; Zhou, Y.L.; Luo, J.F.; Yu, D.Q.; Li, L.W.; Li, H.L.; Ye, P.; et al. Contrast-induced nephropathy following chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic kidney disease. Eur. Radiol. 2015, 25, 2274–2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Greenberg, J.I.; Dorsey, C.; Dalman, R.L.; Lee, J.T.; Harris, E.J.; Hernandez-Boussard, T.; Mell, M.W. Long-term results after accessory renal artery coverage during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2012, 56, 291–296, discussion 296-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  112. Statius van Eps, R.G.; Nemeth, B.; Mairuhu, R.T.A.; Wever, J.J.; Veger, H.T.C.; van Overhagen, H.; van Dijk, L.C.; Knippenberg, B. Determinants of Acute Kidney Injury and Renal Function Decline After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2017, 54, 712–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Nijssen, E.C.; Nelemans, P.J.; Rennenberg, R.J.; Essers, B.A.; Janssen, M.M.; Vermeeren, M.A.; van Ommen, V.; Wildberger, J.E. Intravenous hydration according to current guidelines in the prevention of contrast induced nephropathy-the AMACING trial. J. Thorac. Dis. 2017, 9, E656–E657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  114. Nijssen, E.C.; Rennenberg, R.J.; Nelemans, P.J.; Essers, B.A.; Janssen, M.M.; Vermeeren, M.A.; Ommen, V.V.; Wildberger, J.E. 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. Lancet 2017, 389, 1312–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Prasad, A.; Ortiz-Lopez, C.; Khan, A.; Levin, D.; Kaye, D.M. Acute kidney injury following peripheral angiography and endovascular therapy: A systematic review of the literature. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 88, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Rashid, S.T.; Salman, M.; Myint, F.; Baker, D.M.; Agarwal, S.; Sweny, P.; Hamilton, G. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in vascular patients undergoing angiography: A randomized controlled trial of intravenous N-acetylcysteine. J. Vasc. Surg. 2004, 40, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sandhu, C.; Belli, A.M.; Oliveira, D.B. The role of N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2006, 29, 344–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lawlor, D.K.; Moist, L.; DeRose, G.; Harris, K.A.; Lovell, M.B.; Kribs, S.W.; Elliot, J.; Forbes, T.L. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in vascular surgery patients. Ann. Vasc Surg. 2007, 21, 593–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Karlsberg, R.P.; Dohad, S.Y.; Sheng, R.; Iodixanol Peripheral, C.T.A.S.I.P. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) following intra-arterial administration of iodinated contrast media. J. Nephrol. 2010, 23, 658–666. [Google Scholar]
  120. Karlsberg, R.P.; Dohad, S.Y.; Sheng, R.; Iodixanol Peripheral Computed Tomographic Angiography Study Investigator Panel. Contrast medium-induced acute kidney injury: Comparison of intravenous and intraarterial administration of iodinated contrast medium. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2011, 22, 1159–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Hafiz, A.M.; Jan, M.F.; Mori, N.; Shaikh, F.; Wallach, J.; Bajwa, T.; Allaqaband, S. Prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with stable chronic renal disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions: Randomized comparison of two preventive strategies. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2012, 79, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Al Adas, Z.; Lodewyk, K.; Robinson, D.; Qureshi, S.; Kabbani, L.S.; Sullivan, B.; Shepard, A.D.; Weaver, M.R.; Nypaver, T.J. Contrast-induced nephropathy after peripheral vascular intervention: Long-term renal outcome and risk factors for progressive renal dysfunction. J. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 69, 913–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Sigterman, T.A.; Bolt, L.J.J.; Krasznai, A.G.; Snoeijs, M.G.; Heijboer, R.; Schurink, G.W.H.; Bouwman, L.H. Loss of Kidney Function after Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 40, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ghumman, S.S.; Weinerman, J.; Khan, A.; Cheema, M.S.; Garcia, M.; Levin, D.; Suri, R.; Prasad, A. Contrast induced-acute kidney injury following peripheral angiography with carbon dioxide versus iodinated contrast media: A meta-analysis and systematic review of current literature. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 90, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nehler, M.R.; Duval, S.; Diao, L.; Annex, B.H.; Hiatt, W.R.; Rogers, K.; Zakharyan, A.; Hirsch, A.T. Epidemiology of peripheral arterial disease and critical limb ischemia in an insured national population. J. Vasc. Surg. 2014, 60, 686–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Olin, J.W.; Melia, M.; Young, J.R.; Graor, R.A.; Risius, B. Prevalence of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in patients with atherosclerosis elsewhere. Am. J. Med. 1990, 88, 46N–51N. [Google Scholar]
  127. Arora, P.; Davari-Farid, S.; Gannon, M.P.; Lohr, J.W.; Dosluoglu, H.H.; Nader, N.D. Low levels of high-density lipoproteins are associated with acute kidney injury following revascularization for chronic limb ischemia. Ren Fail. 2013, 35, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Bellomo, R.; Ronco, C.; Kellum, J.A.; Mehta, R.L.; Palevsky, P.; Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, W. Acute renal failure—Definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: The Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit. Care 2004, 8, R204–R212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.