↓ Skip to main content

A randomized controlled trial comparing hydration therapy to additional hemodialysis or N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, December 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
A randomized controlled trial comparing hydration therapy to additional hemodialysis or N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy
Published in
Clinical Research in Cardiology, December 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00392-007-0473-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holger Reinecke, Manfred Fobker, Jürgen Wellmann, Birgit Becke, Jörn Fleiter, Christine Heitmeyer, Günter Breithardt, Hans-Werner Hense, Roland M. Schaefer

Abstract

Contrast medium-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a serious complication with increasing frequency and an unfavorable prognosis. Previous analyses of surrogate parameters have suggested beneficial effects of hemodialysis that are assessed in this randomized clinical trial. We performed a prospective single-center trial in 424 consecutive patients with serum creatinine concentrations between 1.3- 3.5 mg/dl who underwent elective coronary angiography. Patients were randomized to one of three treatment strategies with all patients receiving pre- and postprocedural hydration: One group received no additional therapy, patients in the second group were hemodialyzed once, and the third group received oral N-acetylcysteine. The frequency of CIN (defined as an increase in serum creatinine>or=0.5 mg/dl) from 48 to 72 h after catheterization was 6.1% in the hydration-only group, 15.9% with hemodialysis treatment, and 5.3% in the N-ACC group (intention-to-treat analysis; P=0.008). There were no differences between the treatment groups with regard to increased (>or=0.5 mg/dl) serum creatinine concentrations after 30-60 days (4.8%, 5.1%, and 3.1%, respectively; P=0.700). Analyses of long-term follow-up (range 63 to 1316 days) by Cox regressions models of the study groups found quite similar survival rates (P=0.500). In contrast to other (retrospective) studies, long-term survival of patients with vs those without CIN within 72 h was not different, but patients who still had elevated creatinine concentrations at 30-60 days suffered from a markedly higher 2-year mortality (46% vs 17%, P=0.002). In conclusion, hemodialysis in addition to hydration therapy for the prevention of CIN provided no evidence for any outcome benefit but evidence for probable harm. Increased creatinine concentrations at 30-60 days, but not within 72 h, were associated with markedly reduced long-term survival.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Saudi Arabia 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Other 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,454,143
of 23,666,535 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#82
of 863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,663
of 159,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 159,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.