Skip to content
This GLP
← Research
Evidence

Contrast injury after angiography: the events differed, the creatinine did not

GLP-1 users had kidney injury after contrast at 8.7% against 25.7%. The outcome is defined by a creatinine rise, and creatinine itself came out at p = 0.084.

Glenn Torres7 min read
Two readings of the same kidneys, 48 to 72 hours after contrastThe event, defined as a creatinine rise8.7% on a GLP-125.7% notodds ratio 0.290, 95% CI 0.119 to 0.708The creatinine the definition rests on1.02 mg/dL against 1.17 — p = 0.084, not significant.eGFR, which is calculated from creatinine, did differ:67.1 against 58.0 mL/min/1.73 m², p < 0.001.

A kidney injury here is not something anybody felt. It is a definition: creatinine up by at least 0.5 mg/dL, or by at least a quarter, within seventy-two hours.

Hold that next to the fact that creatinine did not differ significantly between the two groups. [1]

Both numbers, side by side

The event rate was 8.7% among GLP-1 users and 25.7% among non-users. Adjusted, the odds ratio came to 0.290 with an interval of 0.119 to 0.708.

At the same timepoint, mean creatinine was 1.02 mg/dL in users and 1.17 in non-users, p = 0.084. Those standard deviations are wide — 0.73 and 1.57 — and a difference in group means can be absent while a difference in how many people cross a threshold is large.

That is not a contradiction and it is not nothing either. A threshold outcome and a mean are different questions about the same measurement, and a paper reporting both has told you something a paper reporting only the first would not — much as a ratio and an absolute risk describe one finding in two sizes.

What the design can carry

336 people at one center, looked at afterwards. Users were compared with non-users by regression rather than by matching, and nobody chose who got what.

An odds ratio of 0.29 is a large effect. Large effects from small retrospective cohorts are the ones that most often shrink when somebody randomizes, and the reason is usually that the two groups differed in ways nobody recorded — as a hazard ratio of 0.24 for death shows at the extreme.

Why it is still worth reading

Contrast injury is common, it is expensive, and it happens on a schedule somebody controls. A drug patients are already taking that reduced it would matter, and there is a plausible route: better volume status, less inflammation, improved endothelial function.

So this is a hypothesis with a mechanism, measured in a way that leaves room for doubt. The useful next step is a trial that randomizes around a scheduled procedure, which is easier to run than most of the questions this field keeps answering observationally.

Nothing here is a reason to start, stop or time a dose around an angiogram. Tell the team doing the procedure what you take and let them decide.

Frequently asked

Do GLP-1 drugs protect the kidneys during angiography?
This retrospective cohort found fewer contrast-injury events among users, 8.7% against 25.7%. Nobody was randomized, and the creatinine the outcome is defined by did not differ significantly.
How can the event rate differ if creatinine did not?
They are different questions. A threshold outcome counts how many people cross a line; a mean describes the middle of a spread. With standard deviations of 0.73 and 1.57, both can be true.
Why did eGFR differ then?
eGFR is calculated from creatinine, age and sex, so baseline differences between the groups carry into it. It is also sensitive to body composition, which differs on these drugs.
Should I change my dose before a scan with contrast?
Nothing here supports that. Tell the team performing the procedure what you take and let them decide.

Sources

  1. [1] Oksen D, et al. (2026). Effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing coronary interventions Frontiers in Endocrinology. PMID 42723898

Where to get it

Best GLP-1 injections

Every injectable seller we can verify, with the price each one publishes and an honest read of what the trials measured.

Compare providers →

More in Evidence