Premium
Does the method of administering fluids matter for contrast‐induced nephropathy? REMEDIAL III compares LVEDP versus urine flow‐guided hydration
Author(s) -
Grines Cindy L.,
Marshall J. Jeffrey
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.28879
Subject(s) - medicine , preload , contrast induced nephropathy , cardiology , urine , nephropathy , limiting , urology , saline , anesthesia , hemodynamics , endocrinology , mechanical engineering , engineering , diabetes mellitus
Key Points Contrast‐induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing angiographic procedures. Limiting contrast dose and administration of intravenous normal saline appear to be the best approaches to reducing CIN, but the timing, dose, and duration of optimal hydration is poorly understood. The REMEDIAL III trial protocol outlines two different targeted hydration regimens (guided either by continuous measurement of urine output or by initial left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP), and 700 patients at high risk of CIN will be randomized.