ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2020
Comparing Trimetazidine with Allopurinol in Prevention of Contrast Induced Nephropathy After Coronary Angiography.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trimetazidine and allopurinol for the prevention of Contrast-associated acute kidney injury in elective percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Trimetazidine in Cardiovascular Disease and Beyond: A Comprehensive Review.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2025Review
- Protective effect of recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide against contrast-induced nephropathy in elderly acute myocardial infarction patients: A randomized controlled trial.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesContrast-induced nephropathy is considered a serious complication following coronary angiography increasing morbidity and mortality. Various drugs have been assessed to reduce the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy. In this study, we compared trimetazidine and allopurinol as a pharmacological measure to reduce the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy.
methodsOne hundred and twenty patients undergoing coronary angiography with baseline creatinine clearance more than 30 ml/minute were divided into three groups, 40 patients each. Group 1 received standard parenteral intravenous hydration in the form of isotonic saline at a rate of 1 ml/kg body weight per hour started 12 hours before angiography and up to 12 hours after the procedure. Group 2 received trimetazidine 35 mg twice per day for 72 hours starting 48 hours before the procedure in addition to intravenous hydration. Group 3 received allopurinol 300 mg once daily for 72 hours starting 48 hours before the procedure in addition to intravenous hydration. Serum creatinine and creatinine clearance were measured before and 72 hours after the procedure in addition to the volume of contrast media used.
resultsTrimetazidine and allopurinol failed to reduce contrast-induced nephropathy significantly. Among patients with contrast-induced nephropathy volume of contrast media was significantly higher.
conclusionAdding trimetazidine or allopurinol in addition to regular intravenous hydration with isotonic saline without targeting selectively high-risk patients did not reduce contrast-induced nephropathy following coronary angiography.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.