Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention is now the best way of management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Contrast induced nephropathy is a serious complication and greatly dependent on several factors. It is...Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention is now the best way of management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Contrast induced nephropathy is a serious complication and greatly dependent on several factors. It is still unclear whether the vascular access migrates CIN risk. Objective: To study the impact of Radial Access (RA) compared with Femoral Access (FA) on developing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients undergoing invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Sixty patients eligible for invasive management of ACS at cardiology department (Menoufia University hospital and National Heart Institute) were randomized into two groups. Group I: included 30 patients with femoral approach and Group II: included 30 patients with radial approach. The occurrence of CIN estimated by KDIGO definition (absolute increase in serum creatinine (SCr) by ≥0.5 mg/dl within 48 hours;or increase in SCr to ≥25% of baseline) was estimated in both groups. Results: Only 9 patients (15%) developed CIN, 5 patients (55.6%) of them underwent PCI through FA without statistically significant difference between the two approaches.Conclusion: CIN is considered a potential complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our study did not show the preference of using an approach over the other.展开更多
文摘Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention is now the best way of management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Contrast induced nephropathy is a serious complication and greatly dependent on several factors. It is still unclear whether the vascular access migrates CIN risk. Objective: To study the impact of Radial Access (RA) compared with Femoral Access (FA) on developing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients undergoing invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Sixty patients eligible for invasive management of ACS at cardiology department (Menoufia University hospital and National Heart Institute) were randomized into two groups. Group I: included 30 patients with femoral approach and Group II: included 30 patients with radial approach. The occurrence of CIN estimated by KDIGO definition (absolute increase in serum creatinine (SCr) by ≥0.5 mg/dl within 48 hours;or increase in SCr to ≥25% of baseline) was estimated in both groups. Results: Only 9 patients (15%) developed CIN, 5 patients (55.6%) of them underwent PCI through FA without statistically significant difference between the two approaches.Conclusion: CIN is considered a potential complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our study did not show the preference of using an approach over the other.
