Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorAydinalp, Alp
dc.contributor.authorOkyay, Kaan
dc.contributor.authorTekin, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorBal, Ugur Abbas
dc.contributor.authorBayraktar, Nilufer
dc.contributor.authorYildirir, Aylin
dc.contributor.authorMuderrisoglu, Haldun
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-27T13:17:17Z
dc.date.available2019-11-27T13:17:17Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn1664-3828
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/381964
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/4274
dc.description.abstractAims: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is one of the most common causes of hospital-acquired acute renal failure. Oxidative stress and vasoconstriction might play key roles in its pathogenesis. In a few experimental models, antioxidant properties of carvedilol have been documented. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on the development of CIN in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Methods: One hundred patients currently taking metoprolol and 100 patients currently taking carvedilol were enrolled into the study. Venous blood samples were obtained before and 48 h after contrast administration. Cystatin C and malondialdehyde values were examined and compared. CIN was defined as a creatinine increase of at least 25% or 0.5 mg/dl from the baseline value. Results: Seven patients in the carvedilol group (7%) and 22 patients in the metoprolol group (22%) developed CIN (p = 0.003). In the metoprolol group, the median cystatin C concentration increased significantly from 978 to 1,086 ng/ml (p = 0.001) 48 h after radiocontrast administration. In the carvedilol group, the median cystatin C concentration did not change significantly (1,143 vs. 1,068 ng/ml; p = 0.94). In the metoprolol group, the mean malondialdehyde concentration increased significantly from 7.09 +/- 1.48 to 8.38 +/- 2.6 nmol/l (p < 0.001). In the carvedilol group, the mean serum malondialdehyde concentration did not change significantly (7.44 +/- 1.21 vs. 7.56 +/- 1.11 nmol/l; p = 0.59). Conclusion: When compared to metoprolol, carvedilol might decrease oxidative stress and subsequent development of CIN. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Baselen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1159/000381964en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectContrast-induced nephropathyen_US
dc.subjectMetoprololen_US
dc.subjectCarvedilolen_US
dc.subjectCystatin Cen_US
dc.subjectMalondialdehydeen_US
dc.titleComparison of Carvedilol and Metoprolol for Preventing Contrast-Induced Nephropathy after Coronary Angiographyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalCARDIORENAL MEDICINEen_US
dc.identifier.volume5en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage199en_US
dc.identifier.endpage207en_US
dc.identifier.wos000356097900006


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record