©Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Feb 27, 2026; 18(2): 114434
Published online Feb 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.114434
Published online Feb 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.114434
Table 1 Comparison of changes in early renal injury markers between two patient groups (mean ± SD)
| Group | Patients | NGAL (ng/mL) | CysC (mg/L) | ||
| Before | After | Before | After | ||
| Control | 40 | 47.15 ± 9.21 | 79.46 ± 16.80 | 0.88 ± 0.12 | 1.07 ± 0.16 |
| Observation | 40 | 46.27 ± 8.51 | 58.32 ± 12.61 | 0.89 ± 0.14 | 0.99 ± 0.13 |
| t | 0.444 | 6.365 | 0.343 | 2.454 | |
| P value | 0.658 | 0.000 | 0.733 | 0.016 | |
Table 2 Comparison of heart rate variability time-domain parameters between the two patient groups (mean ± SD, millisecond)
| Group | Patients | SDNN | RMSSD | ||
| Before | After | Before | After | ||
| Control | 40 | 62.85 ± 12.31 | 54.20 ± 13.72 | 38.16 ± 9.62 | 31.46 ± 9.21 |
| Observation | 40 | 63.26 ± 11.54 | 68.52 ± 10.36 | 38.76 ± 9.16 | 42.65 ± 8.92 |
| t | 0.154 | 5.268 | 0.286 | 5.520 | |
| P value | 0.878 | 0.000 | 0.776 | 0.000 | |
Table 3 Comparison of systemic inflammatory response indicators between the two patient groups (mean ± SD, pg/mL)
| Group | Patients | IL-6 | TNF-α | ||
| Before | After | Before | After | ||
| Control | 40 | 3.21 ± 0.85 | 13.62 ± 3.51 | 4.21 ± 1.10 | 9.86 ± 2.31 |
| Observation | 40 | 3.30 ± 0.93 | 8.77 ± 2.18 | 4.12 ± 1.05 | 7.32 ± 1.67 |
| t | 0.452 | 7.424 | 0.374 | 5.636 | |
| P value | 0.653 | 0.000 | 0.709 | 0.000 | |
Table 4 Comparison of changes in patient-reported outcomes scores before and after examination in the two patient groups (mean ± SD, score)
| Group | Patients | Emotional function | Overall health | Discomfort | |||
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | ||
| Control | 40 | 66.52 ± 10.15 | 71.82 ± 11.26 | 67.97 ± 10.50 | 72.89 ± 9.38 | 21.35 ± 6.58 | 45.64 ± 8.75 |
| Observation | 40 | 65.26 ± 9.59 | 82.48 ± 10.35 | 68.53 ± 9.72 | 88.75 ± 8.27 | 22.15 ± 7.24 | 30.53 ± 8.32 |
| t | 0.571 | 4.408 | 0.248 | 8.021 | 0.517 | 7.915 | |
| P value | 0.570 | 0.000 | 0.805 | 0.000 | 0.607 | 0.000 | |
Table 5 Comparison of procedure-related complication rates between the two patient groups, n (%)
| Group | Contrast medium extravasation | Mild adverse reactions | Moderate to severe adverse reactions | Overall incidence rate |
| Control | 9 (22.50) | 8 (20.00) | 6 (15.00) | 14 (35.00) |
| Observation | 2 (5.00) | 5 (12.50) | 1 (2.50) | 6 (15.00) |
| χ² | - | 4.267 | ||
| P value | 0.048 | 0.039 |
- Citation: An L, Chang XY. Analysis the effectiveness nursing interventions for contrast-induced adverse reactions in postoperative general surgery patients undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(2): 114434
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i2/114434.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.114434
