Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Automated Contrast Injection Devices Versus Manual Injection and Contrast Volume on Risk of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy

Contrast-sparing devices have been slowly adopted into routine patient care. Randomized trial evidence of automated contrast injectors (ACIs) has not been analyzed to evaluate the true reduction in contrast volume during coronary angiography and intervention. It has been thought that reducing the amount of contrast exposure will result in a simultaneous reduction in the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Therefore, we sought to synthesize published evidence on contrast-sparing devices, contrast volume, and the incidence of CIN. We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The search criteria included ACIs versus manual injection, contrast media volume, and the incidence of CIN. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. The weighted mean difference of contrast volume was calculated using random effects models in RevMan, version 5.4.1, software to derive a summary estimate. A total of 79,694 patients from 10 studies were included (ACI arm, n = 20,099; manual injection arm, n = 59,595). On average, ACIs reduced contrast volume delivery by 45 ml/case (p <0.001, 95% confidence interval −54 to −35). The CIN incidence was significantly reduced by 15%, with an odds ratio of 0.85 (p <0.001, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.93) for those using ACIs compared with manual injection. In conclusion, the use of ACIs in angiography significantly reduces the volume of contrast delivered to the patient and the incidence of CIN.