Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Aug;24(39):1–248. doi: 10.3310/hta24390

Point-of-care creatinine tests to assess kidney function for outpatients requiring contrast-enhanced CT imaging: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

Mark Corbett, Ana Duarte, Alexis Llewellyn, James Altunkaya, Melissa Harden, Martine Harris, Simon Walker, Stephen Palmer, Sofia Dias, Marta Soares
PMCID: PMC7475798  PMID: 32840478

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patients with low estimated glomerular filtration rates may be at higher risk of post-contrast acute kidney injury following contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging. Point-of-care devices allow rapid measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rates for patients referred without a recent estimated glomerular filtration rate result.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care creatinine tests for outpatients without a recent estimated glomerular filtration rate measurement who need contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging.

METHODS

Three systematic reviews of test accuracy, implementation and clinical outcomes, and economic analyses were carried out. Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to November 2018. Studies comparing the accuracy of point-of-care creatinine tests with laboratory reference tests to assess kidney function in adults in a non-emergency setting and studies reporting implementation and clinical outcomes were included. Risk of bias of diagnostic accuracy studies was assessed using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Probabilities of individuals having their estimated glomerular filtration rates correctly classified were estimated within a Bayesian framework and pooled using a fixed-effects model. A de novo probabilistic decision tree cohort model was developed to characterise the decision problem from an NHS and a Personal Social Services perspective. A range of alternative point-of-care testing approaches were considered. Scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in the clinical reviews. Twelve studies reported diagnostic accuracy for estimated glomerular filtration rates; half were rated as being at low risk of bias, but there were applicability concerns for most. i-STAT (Abbott Point of Care, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA) and ABL (Radiometer Ltd, Crawley, UK) devices had higher probabilities of correctly classifying individuals in the same estimated glomerular filtration rate categories as the reference laboratory test than StatSensor® devices (Nova Biomedical, Runcorn, UK). There was limited evidence for epoc® (Siemens Healthineers AG, Erlangen, Germany) and Piccolo Xpress® (Abaxis, Inc., Union City, CA, USA) devices and no studies of DRI-CHEM NX 500 (Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The review of implementation and clinical outcomes included six studies showing practice variation in the management decisions when a point-of-care device indicated an abnormal estimated glomerular filtration rate. The review of cost-effectiveness evidence identified no relevant studies. The de novo decision model that was developed included a total of 14 strategies. Owing to limited data, the model included only i-STAT, ABL800 FLEX and StatSensor. In the base-case analysis, the cost-effective strategy appeared to be a three-step testing sequence involving initially screening all individuals for risk factors, point-of-care testing for those individuals with at least one risk factor, and including a final confirmatory laboratory test for individuals with a point-of-care-positive test result. Within this testing approach, the specific point-of-care device with the highest net benefit was i-STAT, although differences in net benefit with StatSensor were very small.

LIMITATIONS

There was insufficient evidence for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates < 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2, and on the full potential health impact of delayed or rescheduled computed tomography scans or the use of alternative imaging modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

A three-step testing sequence combining a risk factor questionnaire with a point-of-care test and confirmatory laboratory testing appears to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with current practice. The risk of contrast causing acute kidney injury to patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2 is uncertain. Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care testing appears largely driven by the potential of point-of-care tests to minimise delays within the current computed tomography pathway.

FUTURE WORK

Studies evaluating the impact of risk-stratifying questionnaires on workflow outcomes in computed tomography patients without recent estimated glomerular filtration rate results are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018115818.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Before computed tomography scans are done, a contrast agent is usually needed to improve the visibility of internal body structures. After receiving a contrast agent (through a vein), some patients’ kidneys may be affected, especially if their kidneys already do not work well. A blood test can identify these patients before a computed tomography scan, to reduce the risk of kidney harm. The blood test measures creatinine, which is a marker of how well the kidneys work. Before a contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan, some patients have a recent creatinine result from an earlier blood test. Blood tests are normally done in a central laboratory, and usually take at least 1 hour. Other patients do not have a recent creatinine result, so their computed tomography scan may be delayed or rearranged. Sometimes, to avoid risking kidney harm, patients may have scans without contrast. ‘Point-of-care’ (handheld, tabletop or portable) devices can quickly measure creatinine (usually in patients with risk factors), often from a finger-prick blood sample. Many point-of-care devices are available but they may not be as exact as laboratory tests, so their benefit is unclear. This study reviewed all available evidence on the benefits and harms of point-of-care creatinine tests before computed tomography scans and assessed whether or not they are a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The study found that some devices [i.e. i-STAT (Abbott Point of Care, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA) and ABL (Radiometer Ltd, Crawley, UK)] were more accurate than others [i.e. StatSensor® (Nova Biomedical, Runcorn, UK)]. There was insufficient evidence for other devices. The study found that, for outpatients, doing a point-of-care test in patients who are at a higher risk of kidney harm (according to a questionnaire) and then confirming this with a laboratory test appeared to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The study found that the risk of kidney harm as a result of contrast agents appears very low. The main benefit of point-of-care testing may be to reduce needless delays or rearranged computed tomography scan appointments.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). Sixteenth Report. Patient Radiation Dose Issues Resulting from the Use of CT in the UK. London: Public Health England; 2014.
  2. Ehrmann S, Aronson D, Hinson JS. Contrast-associated acute kidney injury is a myth: yes. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:104–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4950-6 doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4950-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Contrast-associated acute kidney injury is a myth: No. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:107–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-5015-6 doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-5015-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Kashani K, Levin A, Schetz M. Contrast-associated acute kidney injury is a myth: we are not sure. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:110–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4970-2 doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4970-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Newhouse JH, Davenport MS. Controversies in contrast material-induced acute kidney injury: closing in on the truth? Radiology 2015;277:627–32. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151486 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151486. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ACR Manual on Contrast Media: Version 10.3 2018. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2018.
  7. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF, Feldman HI, et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:604–12. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:461–70. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00002 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Vanommeslaeghe F, De Mulder E, Van de Bruaene C, Van de Bruaene L, Lameire N, Van Biesen W. Selecting a strategy for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in clinical practice: an evaluation of different clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE tool. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015;30:1300–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv220 doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfv220. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). ESUR Guidelines on Contrast Agents v10.0. ESUR; 2018. URL: https://www.esur-cm.org/ (accessed 28 February 2019).
  11. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Iodinated Contrast Media Guideline V2.3. Sydney, NSW: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists; 2018.
  12. Harris MA, Snaith B, Clarke R. Strategies for assessing renal function prior to outpatient contrast-enhanced CT: a UK survey. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20160077. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160077 doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Cope LH, Drinkwater KJ, Howlett DC. RCR audit of compliance with UK guidelines for the prevention and detection of acute kidney injury in adult patients undergoing iodinated contrast media injections for CT. Clin Radiol 2017;72:1047–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Azzouz M, Romsing J, Thomsen HS. Can a structured questionnaire identify patients with reduced renal function? Eur Radiol 2014;24:780–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3065-x doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3065-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Gbinigie O, Thompson M, Price CP, Heneghan C, Plüddemann A. Point-of-Care Creatinine Testing for the Detection and Monitoring of Chronic Kidney Disease. Oxford: NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford; 2014.
  16. McFadden EC, Hirst JA, Verbakel JY, McLellan JH, Hobbs FDR, Stevens RJ, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis comparing the bias and accuracy of the modification of diet in renal disease and chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration equations in community-based populations. Clin Chem 2018;64:475–85. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2017.276683 doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.276683. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Abbott. i-STAT Alinity. Princeton, NJ: Abbott Point of Care Inc.; 2019. URL: www.pointofcare.abbott/int/en/offerings/istat-alinity (accessed 20 March 2019).
  18. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2013;3:1–150. doi: 10.1038/ki.2013.243. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Chronic Kidney Disease in Adults: Assessment and Management. Clinical Guideline [CG182]. London: NICE; 2014. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg182/chapter/1-Recommendations (accessed 21 May 2019).
  21. Lunn D, Jackson C, Best N, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter D. The BUGS Book. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1201/b13613 doi: 10.1201/b13613. [DOI]
  22. Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med 2009;28:3049–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3680 doi: 10.1002/sim.3680. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16018 doi: 10.1201/b16018. [DOI]
  24. Jackson CH. Displaying uncertainty with shading. Am Stat 2008;62:340–7. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313008X370843 doi: 10.1198/000313008X370843. [DOI]
  25. Brooks SP, Gelman A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 1998;7:434–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787 doi: 10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787. [DOI]
  26. Gelman A, Rubin DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 1992;7:457–72. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136 doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011136. [DOI]
  27. Botz C, Sorenson L, Karon B. Comparison of whole blood and serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate for screening of at-risk patients prior to radiographic procedures. Clin Chem 2013;1:A192.
  28. Dorward J, Yende-Zuma N, Samsunder N, Karim QA, Drain PK, Garrett N. Clinic-based evaluation of a point-of-care creatinine assay to screen for renal impairment among HIV-positive patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2018;77:e36–e39. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000001613 doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Houben IPL, van Berlo CJLY, Bekers O, Nijssen EC, Lobbes MBI, Wildberger JE. Assessing the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy using a finger stick analysis in recalls from breast screening: the CINFIBS Explorative Study. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2017;2017:5670384. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5670384 doi: 10.1155/2017/5670384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Inoue A, Nitta N, Ohta S, Imoto K, Yamasaki M, Ikeda M, Murata K. StatSensor-i point-of-care creatinine analyzer may identify patients at high-risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. Exp Ther Med 2017;13:3503–8. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4389 doi: 10.3892/etm.2017.4389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Korpi-Steiner NL, Williamson EE, Karon BS. Comparison of three whole blood creatinine methods for estimation of glomerular filtration rate before radiographic contrast administration. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:920–6. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPTE5FEY0VCGOZ doi: 10.1309/AJCPTE5FEY0VCGOZ. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Krige T. Screening for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in a High Risk Population Using a Point of Care Instrument for Creatinine Measurement: a Community Based Study (The Bellville South Africa Study). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University; 2017.
  33. Nichols JH, Bartholomew C, Bonzagi A, Garb JL, Jin L. Evaluation of the IRMA TRUpoint and i-STAT creatinine assays. Clin Chim Acta 2007;377:201–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2006.09.024 doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2006.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Obrador G, Olvera N, De La Pe DO, Gutieez V, Villa A. Validation of serum creatinine (SCR) measurement with the point-of-care testing (POCT) device i-STAT in a Mexican government sponsored-chronic kidney disease (CKD) screening program. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:ii100.
  35. Shephard M, Corso O, Mathew T. Creatinine can be measured at the point-of-care. Nephrology 2008;13:A101–A.
  36. Shephard M, Peake M, Corso O, Shephard A, Mazzachi B, Spaeth B, et al. Assessment of the Nova StatSensor whole blood point-of-care creatinine analyzer for the measurement of kidney function in screening for chronic kidney disease. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1113–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2010.238 doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2010.238. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Snaith B, Harris MA, Shinkins B, Jordaan M, Messenger M, Lewington A. Point-of-care creatinine testing for kidney function measurement prior to contrast-enhanced diagnostic imaging: evaluation of the performance of three systems for clinical utility. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1269–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-0128 doi: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0128. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Snaith B, Harris MA, Shinkins B, Messenger M, Lewington A, Jordaan M, Spencer N. Point of care creatinine testing in diagnostic imaging: a feasibility study within the outpatient computed tomography setting. Eur J Radiol 2019;112:82–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.01.007 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Griffin BR, Butler-Dawson J, Dally M, Krisher L, Cruz A, Weitzenkamp D, et al. Unadjusted point of care creatinine results overestimate acute kidney injury incidence during field testing in Guatemala. PLOS ONE 2018;13:e0204614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204614 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Hamza M. Evaluation of the StatSensor Whole Blood Creatinine Monitoring System for Screening Patients in the Radiology Department.
  41. Haneder S, Gutfleisch A, Meier C, Brade J, Hannak D, Schoenberg SO, et al. Evaluation of a handheld creatinine measurement device for real-time determination of serum creatinine in radiology departments. World J Radiol 2012;4:328–34. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v4.i7.328 doi: 10.4329/wjr.v4.i7.328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Kosack CS, de Kieviet W, Bayrak K, Milovic A, Page AL. Evaluation of the Nova StatSensor® Xpress™ Creatinine point-of-care handheld analyzer. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0122433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122433 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. McGough L, Malic A, Beukinga I, Blairon L. Management of the Prevention of Kidney Injury in Patients at Risk of Renal Failure by StatSensor Blood Creatinine Monitoring System: Evaluation of Method. Proceedings of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry CPOCT Conference, 26–29 September 2018, Washington, DC, USA.
  44. Minnings K, Kerns E, Fiore M, Fiore M, Parekh RS, DuBois J, et al. Chronic kidney disease prevalence in Rivas, Nicaragua: use of a field device for creatinine measurement. Clin Biochem 2015;48:456–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.01.005 doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Rensburg M, Hudson C, Erasmus R. Evaluation and performance of the nova StatSensor creatinine point-of-care monitoring system. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;1:S1525.
  46. Aumatell A, Sharpe D, Reed W. Validation of the StatSensor creatinine meter for testing blood before contrast computed tomography studies. Point Care 2010;9:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0b013e3181d2d8a5 doi: 10.1097/POC.0b013e3181d2d8a5. [DOI]
  47. Bahar B, DeChristopher PJ, Holmes EW, Kahn SE. Investigation of falsely decreased creatinine results observed from the Abbott I-STAT point-of-care device in use for testing specimens from ambulatory oncology patients. Point Care 2016;15:72–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000093 doi: 10.1097/POC.0000000000000093. [DOI]
  48. Baier KA, Markham LE, Flaigle SP, Nelson PW, Shield CF, Muruve NA, et al. Point-of-care testing in an organ procurement organization donor management setting. Clin Transplant 2003;17(Suppl. 9):48–51. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0012.17.s9.9.x doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0012.17.s9.9.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Bender LM, Gearhart M, Faso A, Hammett-Stabler C. Comparison of whole blood creatinine measurement to serum creatinine measurements in renal dose calculations. Clin Chem 2012;58:A165–A6.
  50. Betman SA, Hod EA, Kratz A. Hydroxyurea interference in point-of-care creatinine and glucose measurements. Am J Clin Pathol 2015;1:A030. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/143.suppl1.031 doi: 10.1093/ajcp/143.suppl1.031. [DOI]
  51. Bobilewicz D. Comparison of Creatinine Concentration in Serum, Plasma and Whole Blood on Different Routinely Used Analysers. 2008.
  52. Cao J, Edwards R, Chairez J, Devaraj S. Validation of capillary blood analysis and capillary testing mode on the epoc point of care system. Pract Lab Med 2017;9:24–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2017.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2017.07.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Cory R, Clark K, Snowball O, Bramham K. 373. Evaluation of the StatSensor Xpress for the point of care determination of capillary creatinine concentration in a pregnant population. Pregnancy Hypertens 2018;13:S138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preghy.2018.08.410 doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2018.08.410. [DOI]
  54. Dimeski G, Tilley V, Jones BW, Brown NN. Which point-of-care creatinine analyser for radiology: direct comparison of the i-Stat and StatStrip creatinine methods with different sample types. Ann Clin Biochem 2013;50:47–52. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2012.012081 doi: 10.1258/acb.2012.012081. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Dohnal L, Kloudova M, Cechak P. [Comparison of Some Characteristics in Results of Four Analytical Systems for 12 Basic Biochemical Analytes.] Klini Biochemi Metabol 2008;16:33–9.
  56. Gault MH, Seymour ME, Howell WE. Evaluation of i-STAT creatinine assay. Nephron 2001;88:178–82. https://doi.org/10.1159/000045982 doi: 10.1159/000045982. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Georgievskaya ZA, Creger RA, Schmotzer CL. Under-estimation of plasma creatinine using iSTAT point-of-care analyzer: impact on carboplatin dosing in an academic cancer center. Clin Chem 2011;1:A135.
  58. Janetto P, Shi RZ, Scheider C, Breitenfeld D. Comparison of Whole Blood Versus Plasma Creatinine Measurements on the ABL800 FLEX and Olympus AU5431 Analyzer (Modified Jaffe Method). 2006.
  59. Lee-Lewandrowski E, Chang C, Gregory K, Lewandrowski K. Evaluation of rapid point-of-care creatinine testing in the radiology service of a large academic medical center: impact on clinical operations and patient disposition. Clin Chim Acta 2012;413:88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2011.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2011.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Lehtonen A. [Sodium, Potassium and Creatinine Result Level Comparison Between Point-of-Care Analyser and Core Laboratory Automatic Analyser.] Tampere: Tampere University of Applied Sciences; 2013.
  61. Mahlow J, Reineks E. Accuracy of i-STAT point-of-care creatinine measurements in outpatient chemotherapy patients: a direct comparison to laboratory based methods. Clin Chem 2016;62(Suppl. 1):S225.
  62. Morita S, Suzuki K, Masukawa A, Ueno E. Assessing renal function with a rapid, handy, point-of-care whole blood creatinine meter before using contrast materials. Jpn J Radiol 2011;29:187–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-010-0536-8 doi: 10.1007/s11604-010-0536-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Murata K, Glaser L, Nardiello M, Ramanathan LV, Carlow DC. Data from the analytical performance of the Abaxis Piccolo Xpress point of care analyzer in whole blood, serum, and plasma. Data Brief 2018;16:81–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.006 doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. Naugler C, Redman L, Sadzradeh H. Comparison of estimated glomerular filtration rates using creatinine values generated by iSTAT and Cobas 6000. Clin Chim Acta 2014;429:79–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2013.11.033 doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.11.033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Park H, Ko DH, Kim JQ, Song SH. [Performance evaluation of the Piccolo Xpress point-of-care chemistry analyzer.] Korean J Lab Med 2009;29:430–8. https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2009.29.5.430 doi: 10.3343/kjlm.2009.29.5.430. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Schnabl KL, Tarek M, Cursio C, Yip PM. Evaluation of the Piccolo Xpress chemistry analyzer for point of care testing of plasma liver function markers, electrolytes and metabolites. Clin Biochem 2008;41:1284–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2008.08.058 doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2008.08.058. [DOI]
  67. Schnabl KL, Bagherpoor S, Diker P, Cursio C, Dubois J, Yip PM. Evaluation of the analytical performance of the Nova StatSensor creatinine meter and reagent strip technology for whole blood testing. Clin Biochem 2010;43:1026–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2010.04.055 doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2010.04.055. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Skurup A, Kristensen T, Wennecke G, National Kidney Disease Education Program Laboratory Working Group. New creatinine sensor for point-of-care testing of creatinine meets the National Kidney Disease Education Program guidelines. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2008.004 doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2008.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Srihong C, Pangsapa K, Chuaboonmee K, Kotipan Y, Charuruks N. Evaluation of the analytical performance of the nova StatSensor creatinine meter for blood testing. J Med Assoc Thai 2012;95:1225–31. [PubMed]
  70. Stojkovic V, Delanaye P, Schleck M, Le Goff C, Cavalier E. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using a point of care (POC) measure of creatinine in patients with iohexol determinate GFR. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55(Suppl. 1):S149. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2019.08.032. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Straseski J, Phelan L, Clarke W. Creatinine levels in patients with renal disease: discordance between POC meter and automated enzymatic methods. Clin Chem 2009;55:A102–A.
  72. Straseski JA, Clarke W, Molinaro R. Investigating possible causes of discrepant creatinine results: discordance in patients with renal insufficiency. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;134:507.
  73. Straseski JA, Lyon ME, Clarke W, Dubois JA, Phelan LA, Lyon AW. Investigating interferences of a whole-blood point-of-care creatinine analyzer: comparison to plasma enzymatic and definitive creatinine methods in an acute-care setting. Clin Chem 2011;57:1566–73. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.165480 doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.165480. [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Treves C, Boehre JL. Controlled trial between measurement of glomerular filtration rate on venous blood (automated laboratory) and capillary blood (bedside system). Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;1:S690.
  75. Too CW, Ng WY, Tan CC, Mahmood MI, Tay KH. Screening for impaired renal function in outpatients before iodinated contrast injection: comparing the Choyke questionnaire with a rapid point-of-care-test. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:1227–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. van Lint CL, van der Boog PJ, Romijn FP, Schenk PW, van Dijk S, Rovekamp TJ, et al. Application of a point of care creatinine device for trend monitoring in kidney transplant patients: fit for purpose? Clini Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1547–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0932 doi: 10.1515/cclm-2014-0932. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Ledermann HP, Mengiardi B, Schmid A, Froehlich JM. Screening for renal insufficiency following ESUR (European Society of Urogenital Radiology) guidelines with on-site creatinine measurements in an outpatient setting. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1926–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1754-2 doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1754-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Snaith B, Harris MA, Clarke R. Screening prior to gadolinium based contrast agent administration: a UK survey of guideline implementation and adherence. Radiography 2016;22:S24–S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2016.07.006 doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2016.07.006. [DOI]
  79. Stahr K, Lindell E, Ahnlide J, Law I. The impact of Nova StatSensor creatinine point-of-care monitoring system on the number of i.v. contrast-enhanced CT scanning procedures performed in a clinical PET/CT unit. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2010;2:S496–S7.
  80. Murata K, Glaser L, Nardiello M, Richardson S, Ramanathan LV, Carlow DC. Analytical performance of the Abaxis Piccolo Xpress® point of care analyzer in whole blood, serum, and plasma. Clin Biochem 2015;48:1344–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Newhouse JH, Kho D, Rao QA, Starren J. Frequency of serum creatinine changes in the absence of iodinated contrast material: implications for studies of contrast nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:376–82. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3280 doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3280. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Bruce RJ, Djamali A, Shinki K, Michel SJ, Fine JP, Pozniak MA. Background fluctuation of kidney function versus contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:711–18. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1413 doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1413. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Azzouz M, Rømsing J, Thomsen HS. Fluctuations in eGFR in relation to unenhanced and enhanced MRI and CT outpatients. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:886–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.014 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Cheungpasitporn W, Thongprayoon C, Mao MA, Mao SA, D’Costa MR, Kittanamongkolchai W, Kashani KB. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Transplant 2017;7:81–7. https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v7.i1.81 doi: 10.5500/wjt.v7.i1.81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Ehrmann S, Quartin A, Hobbs BP, Robert-Edan V, Cely C, Bell C, et al. Contrast-associated acute kidney injury in the critically ill: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2017;43:785–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4700-9 doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4700-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  86. Aycock RD, Westafer LM, Boxen JL, Majlesi N, Schoenfeld EM, Bannuru RR. Acute kidney injury after computed tomography: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2018;71:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.06.041 doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.06.041. [DOI] [PubMed]
  87. Kooiman J, Pasha SM, Zondag W, Sijpkens YW, van der Molen AJ, Huisman MV, Dekkers OM. Meta-analysis: serum creatinine changes following contrast enhanced CT imaging. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2554–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.11.020 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.11.020. [DOI] [PubMed]
  88. Moos SI, van Vemde DN, Stoker J, Bipat S. Contrast induced nephropathy in patients undergoing intravenous (IV) contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and the relationship with risk factors: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:e387–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.029 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.029. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Carter RE, Hartman RP, Katzberg RW, Kallmes DF, Williamson EE. Intravenous contrast material exposure is not an independent risk factor for dialysis or mortality. Radiology 2014;273:714–25. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132418 doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132418. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology 2013;267:94–105. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121394 doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Cohan RH, Dillman JR, Myles JD, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology 2013;268:719–28. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122276 doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122276. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Carter RE, Katzberg RW, Kallmes DF, Williamson EE. Risk of intravenous contrast material-mediated acute kidney injury: a propensity score-matched study stratified by baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology 2014;271:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130775 doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130775. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:757–63. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_Part_2-199710151-00064 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_Part_2-199710151-00064. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 1985;39:33–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383 doi: 10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383. [DOI]
  95. Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, Mrkobrada M, Levine O, Ribic C, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:622–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Dekkers IA, van der Molen AJ. Propensity score matching as a substitute for randomized controlled trials on acute kidney injury after contrast media administration: a systematic review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;211:822–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19499 doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19499. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Hinson JS, Ehmann MR, Fine DM, Fishman EK, Toerper MF, Rothman RE, Klein EY. Risk of acute kidney injury after intravenous contrast media administration. Ann Emerg Med 2017;69:577–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.11.021 doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Williamson EE, Kallmes DF. Is intravenous administration of iodixanol associated with increased risk of acute kidney injury, dialysis, or mortality? A propensity score-adjusted study. Radiology 2017;285:414–24. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161573 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161573. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. URL: www.handbook.cochrane.org (accessed 21 May 2019).
  100. Hiremath S, Akbari A, Shabana W, Fergusson DA, Knoll GA. Prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury: is simple oral hydration similar to intravenous? A systematic review of the evidence. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e60009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060009 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Agarwal SK, Mohareb S, Patel A, Yacoub R, DiNicolantonio JJ, Konstantinidis I, et al. Systematic oral hydration with water is similar to parenteral hydration for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: an updated meta-analysis of randomised clinical data. Open Heart 2015;2:e000317. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2015-000317 doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2015-000317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  102. Ahmed K, McVeigh T, Cerneviciute R, Mohamed S, Tubassam M, Karim M, Walsh S. Effectiveness of contrast-associated acute kidney injury prevention methods; a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol 2018;19:323. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-018-1113-0 doi: 10.1186/s12882-018-1113-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  103. Dussol B, Morange S, Loundoun A, Auquier P, Berland Y. A randomized trial of saline hydration to prevent contrast nephropathy in chronic renal failure patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:2120–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfl133 doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfl133. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Nijssen EC, Rennenberg RJ, Nelemans PJ, Essers BA, Janssen MM, Vermeeren MA, et al. Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): a prospective, randomised, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2017;389:1312–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30057-0 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30057-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  105. Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, Rennenberg RJ, van Ommen V, Wildberger JE. Prophylactic intravenous hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material (AMACING): long-term results of a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine 2018;4–5:109–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.10.007 doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.10.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  106. Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, Rennenberg RJ, van Ommen V, Wildberger JE. Evaluation of safety guidelines on the use of iodinated contrast material: conundrum continued. Invest Radiol 2018;53:616–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000479 doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000479. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. The Renal Association, British Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the Royal College of Radiologists. Prevention of Contrast Induced Acute Kidney Injury (CI-AKI) in Adult Patients. 2013. URL: www.rcr.ac.uk/publications.aspx?PageID=310%26PublicationID=391 (accessed 31 January 2019).
  108. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Acute Kidney Injury: Prevention, Detection and Management of Acute Kidney Injury up to the Point of Renal Replacement Therapy. Clinical Guidelines, CG169. London: NICE; 2013. URL: https://guidance.nice.org.uk/cg169 (accessed 31 January 2019).
  109. Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for Intravascular Contrast Administration to Adult Patients. 3rd edn. London: Royal College of Radiologists; 2015.
  110. National Clinical Guideline Centre. Acute kidney injury: prevention, detection and management up to the point of renal replacement therapy. Royal Coll Physicians 2013;8:8. [PubMed]
  111. Department of Health and Social Care. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2015–2016. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2016. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2015-to-2016 (accessed 15 April 2019).
  112. Nowacek A, McClintock D. Point-of-care creatinine/estimated glomerular filtration rate testing within the radiology department of an academic medical center improves workflow and reduces costs. Am J Clin Pathol 2015;1:A044. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/143.suppl1.045 doi: 10.1093/ajcp/143.suppl1.045. [DOI]
  113. Chalkidou A and Erskine J. RX205 Point-of-care Creatinine Tests. London: KiTEC – King’s Technology Evaluation Centre; 2019.
  114. Moos SI, Stoker J, Nagan G, de Weijert RS, van Vemde DN, Bipat S. Prediction of presence of kidney disease in a general patient population undergoing intravenous iodinated contrast enhanced computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2014;24:1266–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3149-2 doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3149-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Park S, Kim MH, Kang E, Park S, Jo HA, Lee H, et al. Contrast-induced nephropathy after computed tomography in stable CKD patients with proper prophylaxis: 8-year experience of outpatient prophylaxis program. Medicine 2016;95:e3560. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003560 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  116. Schreuder SM, Stoker J, Bipat S. Prediction of presence of kidney disease in patients undergoing intravenous iodinated contrast enhanced computed tomography: a validation study. Eur Radiol 2017;27:1613–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4478-0 doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4478-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  117. Kim SM, Cha RH, Lee JP, Kim DK, Oh KH, Joo KW, et al. Incidence and outcomes of contrast-induced nephropathy after computed tomography in patients with CKD: a quality improvement report. Am J Kidney Dis 2010;55:1018–25. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.10.057 doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.10.057. [DOI] [PubMed]
  118. Office for National Statistics. National Life Tables: England. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2018. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesenglandreferencetables (accessed 7 February 2020).
  119. Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 2010;13:509–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, Howard K, Webster AC. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLOS Med 2012;9:e1001307. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  121. Hall PS, Mitchell ED, Smith AF, Cairns DA, Messenger M, Hutchinson M, et al. The future for diagnostic tests of acute kidney injury in critical care: evidence synthesis, care pathway analysis and research prioritisation. Health Technol Assess 2018;22(32). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22320 doi: 10.3310/hta22320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  122. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  123. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
  124. Department of Health and Social Care. National Schedule of Reference Costs – Year 2017–18 – NHS Trust and NHS Foundation Trusts. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed 15 April 2019).
  125. Duffy S, de Kock S, Misso K, Noake C, Ross J, Stirk L. Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid. J Med Libr Assoc 2016;104:309–12. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.011 doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. Adams DA, Buus-Frank M. Point-of-care technology: the i-STAT system for bedside blood analysis. J Pediatr Nurs 1995;10:194–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-5963(05)80084-3 doi: 10.1016/S0882-5963(05)80084-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  127. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Point of Care Testing for Human Chorionic Gonadotropin, Creatinine, and Blood Urea Nitrogen: Cost-effectiveness. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2013. URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=32014000136 (accessed 21 May 2019).
  128. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). CADTH Database Search Filters. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2016. URL: www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/strings-attached-cadths-database-search-filters (accessed 13 January 2019).
  129. Chicaíza-Becerra LA, García-Molina M, Gamboa Ó. Cost-effectiveness of iso- versus low-osmolality contrast media in outpatients with high risk of contrast medium-induced nephropathy. Biomedica 2012;32:182–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0120-41572012000300005 doi: 10.1590/S0120-41572012000300005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  130. Iannazzo S, Vandekerckhove S, De Francesco M, Nayak A, Ronco C, Morana G, Valentino M. Economic evaluation of intravenous iodinated contrast media in Italy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014;30:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462313000706 doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000706. [DOI] [PubMed]
  131. De Smedt DM, Elseviers MM, Lins RL, Annemans L. Economic evaluation of different treatment modalities in acute kidney injury. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:4095–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfs410 doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfs410. [DOI] [PubMed]
  132. Ethgen O, Schneider AG, Bagshaw SM, Bellomo R, Kellum JA. Economics of dialysis dependence following renal replacement therapy for critically ill acute kidney injury patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015;30:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu314 doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfu314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  133. Kerr M, Bedford M, Matthews B, O’Donoghue D. The economic impact of acute kidney injury in England. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2014;29:1362–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu016 doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfu016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  134. Petrovic S, Bogavac-Stanojevic N, Lakic D, Peco-Antic A, Vulicevic I, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of acute kidney injury biomarkers in pediatric cardiac surgery. Biochemia Medica 2015;25:262–71. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.027 doi: 10.11613/BM.2015.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  135. James MT, Ghali WA, Knudtson ML, Ravani P, Tonelli M, Faris P, et al. Associations between acute kidney injury and cardiovascular and renal outcomes after coronary angiography. Circulation 2011;123:409–16. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.970160 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.970160. [DOI] [PubMed]
  136. Mueller C, Buerkle G, Buettner HJ, Petersen J, Perruchoud AP, Eriksson U, et al. Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:329–36. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.162.3.329 doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.3.329. [DOI] [PubMed]
  137. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009;360:961–72. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0804626 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804626. [DOI] [PubMed]
  138. Eriksen BO, Ingebretsen OC. The progression of chronic kidney disease: a 10-year population-based study of the effects of gender and age. Kidney Int 2006;69:375–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5000058 doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5000058. [DOI] [PubMed]
  139. Tajima R, Kondo M, Kai H, Saito C, Okada M, Takahashi H, et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease in Japan with EuroQol (EQ-5D). Clin Exp Nephrol 2010;14:340–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10157-010-0304-1 doi: 10.1007/s10157-010-0304-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  140. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998;316:736–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7133.736 doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7133.736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  141. Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, Ghushchyan V. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making 2011;31:800–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11401031 doi: 10.1177/0272989X11401031. [DOI] [PubMed]
  142. Department of Health and Social Care. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2011–2012. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2012. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-financial-year-2011-to-2012 (accessed 15 April 2019).
  143. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2012. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2012.
  144. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (BNF). 62nd edition. London: British Medical Association and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; 2013.
  145. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Anaemia Management in People with Chronic Kidney Disease Clinical Guidelines, CG114. London: NICE; 2011. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg114 (accessed 21 April 2020).
  146. Solomon R. The role of osmolality in the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review of angiographic contrast media in high risk patients. Kidney Int 2005;68:2256–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00684.x doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00684.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  147. Nguyen SA, Suranyi P, Ravenel JG, Randall PK, Romano PB, Strom KA, et al. Iso-osmolality versus low-osmolality iodinated contrast medium at intravenous contrast-enhanced CT: effect on kidney function. Radiology 2008;248.1:97–105. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071484 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2481071484. [DOI] [PubMed]
  148. Solomon R, DuMouchel W. Contrast media and nephropathy: findings from systematic analysis and Food and Drug Administration reports of adverse effects. Invest Radiol 2006;41.8:651–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000229742.54589.7b doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000229742.54589.7b. [DOI] [PubMed]
  149. From AM, Bartholmai BJ, Williams AW, Cha SS, McDonald FS. Mortality associated with nephropathy after radiographic contrast exposure. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83:1095–100. https://doi.org/10.4065/83.10.1095 doi: 10.4065/83.10.1095. [DOI] [PubMed]
  150. Klarenbach SW, Pannu N, Tonelli MA, Manns BJ. Cost-effectiveness of hemofiltration to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease. Crit Care Med 2006;34:1044–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000206287.22318.C3 doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000206287.22318.C3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  151. Aguirre Caicedo M. [Nefropatía por medios de contraste.] Acta Med Colomb 2007;32:68–79.

RESOURCES