Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 837-841

Oral versus intravenous hydration in protection against contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography

Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mona E Mansour
Menoufia University, Faculty of Medicine, Shebin Elkom, Menoufia, 32511
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1110-2098.218273

Rights and Permissions

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of oral hydration for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Background CIN is related to increased long-term morbidity and mortality. Adequate intravenous hydration has been demonstrated to lessen its occurrence. Oral hydration with water is inexpensive and readily available. However, its role in CIN prevention is yet to be determined. Patients and methods This study included 200 patients (age 55 ± 7.55 years, 98 female/102 male) scheduled for diagnostic coronary angiography, who were divided into two groups. Eligible patients in group I (100 patients) were hydrated orally with 500 ml of water given 4 h before contrast; consumption of water was stopped 2 h before performing coronary angiography and was resumed with 600 ml after the procedure. Group II (100 patients) received intravenous hydration in the form of isotonic saline 0.9% at 3 ml/kg over 1-h before coronary angiography and 1 ml/kg over 6 h after the procedure. During the procedure all patients received contrast medium (Telebrix). The primary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of renal function before and 72 h after contrast medium administration. Results A total of 200 patients were included in the analysis, who were divided into two groups: group I comprised 100 patients who received per-os oral water. Group II comprised 100 patients who received intravenous saline. The incidence of CIN was statistically similar in the oral and intravenous arms (6 and 7%, respectively; P = 0.774). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding serum creatinine elevation 48–72 h after contrast exposure (as P = 0.410). Conclusion Oral hydration with water is as effective as intravenous hydration with saline in preventing CIN. Oral hydration is cheaper and more easily administered than intravenous hydration.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded57    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal