INCIDENCE AND MAIN DETERMINANTS OF CONTRAST-INDUCED NEPHROPATHY FOLLOWING CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY OR SUBSEQUENT BALLOON ANGIOPLASTY

BACKGROUND Contrast-induced nephropathy is evincing lot of interest as the number of diagnostic and interventional radiologic imaging procedures is on rise. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of contrast nephropathy after coronary angiography and to identify the key risk factors of contrast nephropathy after coronary angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was conducted among 51 patients who underwent coronary angiography at cardiac catheterisation lab in Department of Cardiology in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, between October 2014 to March 2015. Contrast-induced nephropathy was defined by an increase in creatinine of >0.5 mg/dL or 25% of the initial value.1 A careful history and examination was done to assess comorbid conditions such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension, previous exposure to contrast media and drugs and hydration status. Procedural variables including the type of procedure (Diagnostic, interventional), contrast dye load and contrast agent was recorded. Student’s ‘t’ test was used to test the significance of association between quantitative variables and Yate’s and Fisher’s chi-square tests for qualitative variables. A 'p' value less than 0.05 was taken to denote significant relationship. RESULTS The incidence of contrast nephropathy was 11.8% among the population studied. The relationship between age and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.8141). The relationship between diabetes mellitus and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.2344). The relationship between ejection fraction and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.5523). The baseline eGFR was not significantly associated with CIN (p=0.5974). The relationship between contrast volume and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.337). None of the risk factors assessed was significantly associated with CIN. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of contrast nephropathy was 11.8% among the population studied. The relationship between age and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.8141). The relationship between diabetes mellitus and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.2344). The relationship between ejection fraction and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.5523). The baseline eGFR was not significantly associated with CIN (p=0.5974). The relationship between contrast volume and CIN was not statistically significant (p=0.337). None of the risk factors assessed was significantly associated with CIN.