Abstract
BACKGROUND The effectiveness of oral hydration in preventing contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients undergoing coronary angiography or intervention has not been well established. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of oral hydration compared with intravenous hydration and other frequently used hydration strategies. METHODS PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched from inception to 8 October 2017. To be eligible for analysis, studies had to evaluate the relative efficacy of different prophylactic hydration strategies. We selected and assessed the studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and carried out a pairwise and network meta-analysis using RevMan5.2 and Aggregate Data Drug Information System 1.16.8 software. RESULTS A total of four studies (538 participants) were included in our pairwise meta-analysis and 1754 participants from eight studies with four frequently used hydration strategies were included in a network meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analysis indicated that oral hydration was as effective as intravenous hydration for the prevention of CI-AKI (5.88 vs. 8.43%; odds ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.47; P>0.05), with no significant heterogeneity between studies. Network meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the prevention of CI-AKI. However, the rank probability plot suggested that oral plus intravenous hydration had a higher probability (51%) of being the best strategy, followed by diuretic plus intravenous hydration (39%) and oral hydration alone (10%). Intravenous hydration alone was the strategy with the highest probability (70%) of being the worst hydration strategy. CONCLUSION Our study shows that oral hydration is not inferior to intravenous hydration for the prevention of CI-AKI in patients with normal or mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography or intervention.
