Advertisement

MDCT pp 25-30 | Cite as

Contrast Media Safety and Managing At-Risk Patients: Update 2008

  • Richard Solomon

Abstract

The use of iodinated contrast media (CM) for radiological and cardiological applications continues to increase. An estimated 50 million computed tomography (CT) exams are performed annually, with almost 50% involving the use of contrast material. Additionally, 500,000 procedures are done annually for peripheral arterial interventions, and 3 million coronary diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures are done each year in the USA alone. In this chapter, we review recent developments in the field of contrast-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN).

Keywords

Contrast Medium Contrast Injection Moderate Renal Insufficiency Percutaneous Coronary Inter High Osmolality Contrast Medium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chertow G, Soroko SH, Paganini EP et al (2006) Mortality after acute renal failure: models for prognostic stratification and risk adjustment. Kidney Int 70:1120–1126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruberg L, Mintz GS, Mehran R et al (2000) The prognostic implications of further renal function deterioration within 48 h of interventional coronary procedures in patients with pre-existent chronic renal in sufficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1542–1548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCullough P, Wolyn R, Rocher LL et al (1997) Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. Am J Med 103:368–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Solomon R, Barrett B (2006) Follow-up of patients with contrast-induced nephropathy. Kidney Int 69:S46–S50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solomon R (1998) Contrast-medium-induced acute renal failure. Kidney Int 53:230–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bader B, Berger ED, Heede MB (2004) What is the best hydration regimen to prevent contrast mediainduced nephrotoxicity? Clin Nephrol 62:1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levey A, Bosch JP, Lewis JB (1999) A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: A new prediction equation. Ann Intern Med 130:461–470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katzberg R, Barrett BJ (2007) Risk of iodinated contrast material-induced nephrophathy with intravenous administration. Radiology 243:622–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heller C, Knapp J, Halliday J et al (1991) Failure to demon strate contrast nephrotoxicity. Med J Aust 155:329–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carraro M, Malalan F, Antonione R et al (1998) Effects of a dimeric vs a monomeric nonionic contrast medium on renal function in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Eur Radiol 8:144–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lundqvist S, Holmberg G, Jakobsson G et al (1998) Assessment of possible nephrotoxicity from iohexol in patients with normal and impaired renal function. Acad Radiol 39:362–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tepel M, Van Der Giet M, Schwarzfeld C et al (2000) Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med 343:180–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolehmainen H, Soiva M (2003) Comparison of Xenetrix 300 and Visipaque 320 in patients with renal failure. Eur Radiol 13:B32Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcia-Ruiz C, Martinez-Vea A, Sempere T et al (2004) Low risk of contrast nephropathy in high-risk patients undergoing spiral computed tomography angiography with the contrast medium iopromide and prophylactic oral hydration. Clin Nephrol 61:170–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Becker C, Reiser MF (2005) Use of iso-osmolar nonionic dimeric contrast media in multidetector row computed tomography angiography for patients with renal impairment. Invest Radiol 40:672–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barrett B, Thomsen H, Katzberg R (2006) Nephrotoxicity of low-osmolar iopamidol vs iso-osmolar iodixanol in renally impaired patients: the IMPACT study. Invest Radiol 41:815–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erley C, Thomsen HS, Morcos S et al (2007) Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) after iomeron-400 or iodixanol-320 in patients with mode rate-to-severe chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 18:795AGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barrett B, Carlisle EJ (1993) Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high-and low-osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology 188:171–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson S et al (2003) Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiography. N Engl J Med 348:491–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solomon R (2005) The role of osmolality in the incidence of contrast induced nephropathy: a systematic review of angiographic contrast media in high risk patients. Kidney Int 68:2256–2263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chalmers N, Jackson RW (1999) Comparison of iodixanol and iohexol in renal impairment. Br J Radiol 72:701–703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jo S, Youn TJ, Koo BW et al (2006) Renal toxicity evaluation and comparison between Visipaque (Iodixanol) and Hexabrix (Ioxaglate) in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography: The RECOVER study: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:924–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Solomon R, Natarajan MK, Doucet S et al (2007) The CARE (Cardiac Angiography in REnally impaired Patients) Study: A randomized, double-blind trial of contrast-induced nephropathy in high risk patients. Circulation 115:3189–3196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rudnick M (2005) Con trast media induced nephrotoxicity. ASN Clinical Nephrology Conferences Nov 8–13:343–353Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mehran R, for the ICON Investigators (2006) Ionic versus non-ionic contrast to obviate worsening nephropathy after angioplasty in chronic renal failure patients. Abstract TCT meeting, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCullough P, Bertrand ME, Brinker JA, Stacul F (2006) A meta-analysis of the renal safety of isosmolar iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:692–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dussol B, Morange S, Loundoun A et al (2006) A randomized trial of saline hydration to prevent contrast nephropathy in chronic renal failure patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:2120–2126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zagler A, Azadpour M, Mercado C, Hennekens CH (2006) N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy: A metaanalysis of 13 randomized trials. Am Heart J 151:140–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Merten G, Burgess WP, Gray LV et al (2004) Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 291:2328–2334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marenzi G, Lauri G, Campodonico J et al (2006) Comparison of two hemofiltration protocols for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in high-risk patients. Am J Med 119:155–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Solomon
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of NephrologyUniversity of Vermont College of MedicineBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations