SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2026
Ultra-Low Contrast versus Conventional Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients with Baseline Renal Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.
Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Coronary Artery to Kidney: Redefining the Goals of Intracoronary Imaging-Optimized Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) results in increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and worse clinical outcomes. Prior studies have shown that limiting contrast volume (CV) to less than 3 times the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) implies a lower risk of CA-AKI, and both efficacy and superior outcomes are associated with ultra-low contrast (ULC) volume coronary procedures (total CV ≤ eGFR).
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical outcomes of ULC versus conventional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic kidney disease.
methodsThe search was conducted in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, including all studies reporting clinical outcomes of ULC PCI. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of CA-AKI, and secondary endpoints were need for dialysis, all-cause mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization.
resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis, encompassing a total of 274,102 patients. ULC PCI was associated with a statistically significant reduction of CA-AKI (risk ratio=0.27; 95% CI=0.13-0.56; p=0.0004). In turn, ULC PCI did not result in statistically significant reduction of need for dialysis (risk ratio=0.33; 95% CI=0.06-1.72; p=0.186), all-cause mortality (risk ratio=0.48; 95% CI=0.17-1.39; p=0.18), and MACE (risk ratio=0.52; 95% CI= 0.21-1.30; p=0.16).
conclusionsULC, as compared to conventional PCI, in patients with chronic kidney disease, was found to be safe, feasible, and associated with a statistically significant reduction of CA-AKI. Further, larger, well-powered, randomized, and controlled trials are warranted in order to reassure these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.