Limits...
Comparison of the efficacy of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing contrast induced nephropathy in patient with chronic kidney disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Liu Y, Liu YH, Tan N, Chen JY, Zhou YL, Li LW, Duan CY, Chen PY, Luo JF, Li HL - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: Clinical and procedural characteristics did not show significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05).Additionally, there were no significant inter-group differences with respect to in-hospital mortality rates (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.141), or other in-hospital complications.Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that rosuvastatin and atorvastatin demonstrated similar efficacies for preventing CIN, after adjusting for potential confounding risk factors (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.20, p = 0.623).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: We prospectively compared the preventive effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: We enrolled 1078 consecutive patients with CKD undergoing elective PCI. Patients in Group 1 (n = 273) received rosuvastatin (10 mg), and those in group 2 (n = 805) received atorvastatin (20 mg). The primary end-point was the development of CIN, defined as an absolute increase in serum creatinine ≥0.5 mg/dL, or an increase ≥25% from baseline within 48-72 h after contrast medium exposure.

Results: CIN was observed in 58 (5.4%) patients. The incidence of CIN was similar in patients pretreated with either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin (5.9% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.684). The same results were also observed when using other definitions of CIN. Clinical and procedural characteristics did not show significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05). Additionally, there were no significant inter-group differences with respect to in-hospital mortality rates (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.141), or other in-hospital complications. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that rosuvastatin and atorvastatin demonstrated similar efficacies for preventing CIN, after adjusting for potential confounding risk factors (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.20, p = 0.623). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that patients taking either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin had similar incidences of all-cause mortality (9.4% vs. 7.1%, respectively; p = 0.290) and major adverse cardiovascular events (29.32% vs. 23.14%, respectively; p = 0.135) during follow-up.

Conclusions: Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin have similar efficacies for preventing CIN in patients with CKD undergoing PCI.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Cumulative rate of follow-up all-cause mortality (A) or major adverse cardiovascular events (B) in patients initially treated with rosuvastatin or atorvastatin.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4214705&req=5

pone-0111124-g003: Cumulative rate of follow-up all-cause mortality (A) or major adverse cardiovascular events (B) in patients initially treated with rosuvastatin or atorvastatin.

Mentions: To determine the relationship between the accumulated risk of adverse events and rosuvastatin or atorvastatin pretreatment, a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed. Patients pretreated either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin demonstrated a similar incidence of all-cause mortality (7.76% vs. 5.36%, P = 0.193) or MACEs (26.48% vs. 21.28%, P = 0.243), as illustrated in Figure 3. In addition, patients who developed CIN had a higher rate of all-cause mortality than those who did not (cumulative rate of mortality, 22.73% vs. 5.07%, P<0.001). A similar result was found for MACEs. (43.18% vs. 21.50%, P = 0.002). (Figure 4).


Comparison of the efficacy of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing contrast induced nephropathy in patient with chronic kidney disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Liu Y, Liu YH, Tan N, Chen JY, Zhou YL, Li LW, Duan CY, Chen PY, Luo JF, Li HL - PLoS ONE (2014)

Cumulative rate of follow-up all-cause mortality (A) or major adverse cardiovascular events (B) in patients initially treated with rosuvastatin or atorvastatin.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4214705&req=5

pone-0111124-g003: Cumulative rate of follow-up all-cause mortality (A) or major adverse cardiovascular events (B) in patients initially treated with rosuvastatin or atorvastatin.
Mentions: To determine the relationship between the accumulated risk of adverse events and rosuvastatin or atorvastatin pretreatment, a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed. Patients pretreated either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin demonstrated a similar incidence of all-cause mortality (7.76% vs. 5.36%, P = 0.193) or MACEs (26.48% vs. 21.28%, P = 0.243), as illustrated in Figure 3. In addition, patients who developed CIN had a higher rate of all-cause mortality than those who did not (cumulative rate of mortality, 22.73% vs. 5.07%, P<0.001). A similar result was found for MACEs. (43.18% vs. 21.50%, P = 0.002). (Figure 4).

Bottom Line: Clinical and procedural characteristics did not show significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05).Additionally, there were no significant inter-group differences with respect to in-hospital mortality rates (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.141), or other in-hospital complications.Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that rosuvastatin and atorvastatin demonstrated similar efficacies for preventing CIN, after adjusting for potential confounding risk factors (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.20, p = 0.623).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: We prospectively compared the preventive effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: We enrolled 1078 consecutive patients with CKD undergoing elective PCI. Patients in Group 1 (n = 273) received rosuvastatin (10 mg), and those in group 2 (n = 805) received atorvastatin (20 mg). The primary end-point was the development of CIN, defined as an absolute increase in serum creatinine ≥0.5 mg/dL, or an increase ≥25% from baseline within 48-72 h after contrast medium exposure.

Results: CIN was observed in 58 (5.4%) patients. The incidence of CIN was similar in patients pretreated with either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin (5.9% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.684). The same results were also observed when using other definitions of CIN. Clinical and procedural characteristics did not show significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05). Additionally, there were no significant inter-group differences with respect to in-hospital mortality rates (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.141), or other in-hospital complications. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that rosuvastatin and atorvastatin demonstrated similar efficacies for preventing CIN, after adjusting for potential confounding risk factors (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.20, p = 0.623). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that patients taking either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin had similar incidences of all-cause mortality (9.4% vs. 7.1%, respectively; p = 0.290) and major adverse cardiovascular events (29.32% vs. 23.14%, respectively; p = 0.135) during follow-up.

Conclusions: Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin have similar efficacies for preventing CIN in patients with CKD undergoing PCI.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus