Inotropic effects of ionic contrast media: the role of calcium binding additives

The yin and yang of co-inhibitory receptors: toward anti-tumor immunity without autoimmunity

Co-inhibitory receptors are important regulators of T-cell function that define the balance between tolerance and autoimmunity. The immune regulatory function of co-inhibitory receptors, including CTLA-4, PD-1, TIM-3, TIGIT, and LAG-3, was first discovered in the setting of autoimmune disease models, in which their blockade or deficiency resulted in induction or exacerbation of the disease. Later on, co-inhibitory receptors on lymphocytes have also been found to influence outcomes in tumor and chronic viral infection settings. These receptors suppress T-cell function in the tumor microenvironment (TME), thereby making the T cells dysfunctional. Based on this observation, blockade of co-inhibitory receptors (also known as checkpoint molecules) has emerged as a successful treatment option for a number of human cancers. However, severe autoimmune-like side effects limit the use of therapeutics that block individual or combinations of co-inhibitory receptors for cancer treatment. In this review we provide an overview of the role of co-inhibitory receptors in autoimmunity and anti-tumor immunity. We then discuss current approaches and future directions to leverage our knowledge of co-inhibitory receptors to target them in tumor immunity without inducing autoimmunity.

Analytical Interference by Contrast Agents in Biochemical Assays

Objective

To provide a clinically relevant overview of the analytical interference by contrast agents (CA) in laboratory blood test measurements.

Materials and Methods

The effects of five CAs, gadobutrol, gadoterate meglumine, gadoxetate disodium, iodixanol, and iomeprol, were studied on the 29 most frequently performed biochemical assays. One-day-old plasma, serum, and whole blood were spiked with doses of each agent such that the gadolinium agents and the iodine agents reached concentrations of 0.5 mM and 12 mg iodine/mL, respectively. Subsequently, 12 assays were reexamined using 1/2 and 1/4 of these CA concentrations. The results were assessed statistically by a paired Student's t-test.

Results

Iodixanol produced a negative interference on the bicarbonate (p = 0.011), lactate dehydrogenase (p < 0.0001), and zinc (p = 0.0034) assays and a positive interference on the albumin (p = 0.0062), calcium (p < 0.0001), ionized calcium (p = 0.0086), iron (p < 0.0001), and potassium (p = 0.0003) assays. Iomeprol produced a negative interference on the bicarbonate (p = 0.0057) and magnesium (p = 0.0001) assays and a positive interference on the calcium (p < 0.0001) and potassium (p = 0.0012) assays. Gadoxetate disodium produced a negative interference on the iron (p < 0.0001) and zinc (p < 0.0001) assays and a positive interference on the sodium (p = 0.032) assay.

Conclusion

CAs cause analytical interference. Attention should be given to the above-mentioned analyte-CA combinations when assessing laboratory blood test results obtained after CA administration.

Cardiovascular effects of iodinated contrast agents

The ideal intravascular contrast agent would be biologically inert and have no pharmacologic actions. Pharmacologic actions of currently used radiographic contrast agents are determined principally by 3 physicochemical properties of the iodine-bearing molecule and its formulation: osmolality, sodium concentration and calcium-binding properties. Within this framework, the calcium-binding 1.5 ratio agents have the most marked effects, and the 3.0 ratio nonionic agents the least, with the noncalcium-binding formulations of 1.5 ratio agents and ioxaglate (the only 3.0 ratio ionic agent) in between. Differences in hemodynamic effects are predominantly related to osmolality with the 3.0 agents causing less hemodynamic disturbance. The magnitude of difference is small enough that the 3.0 ratio agents have no important clinical advantage when used in patients with good or moderately impaired left ventricular function. However, the difference may be important in patients with severely impaired circulatory performance. The principal electrophysiologic differences are between the calcium-binding 1.5 ratio agents (which are associated with a clear-cut greater frequency of ventricular fibrillation during coronary injection than the noncalcium-binding 1.5 ratio agents) and the 3.0 ratio agents. There is no justification for the use of calcium-binding 1.5 ratio agents, since noncalcium-binding formulations of the same molecule are available at the same price. The circulatory reserve of most patients makes the differences between 3.0 ratio agents and noncalcium-binding 1.5 ratio agents clinically unimportant. In view of the substantial price disparity between 1.5 ratio and 3.0 ratio agents, noncalcium-binding 1.5 ratio agents are appropriate for patients with good circulatory performance and 3.0 ratio agents are best reserved for patients with impaired circulatory performance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Selection of a contrast agent in the cardiac catheterization laboratory

The evolution of contrast material for intravascular use has been directed toward the development of better-tolerated agents. Currently, a variety of such "dyes" are available for coronary angiography and left ventriculography. Considerable animal and human investigation suggests that significant differences exist between the families of contrast agents that relate to patient tolerance. The newer low osmolality agents (especially the nonionic agents) produce less perturbation of the homeostatic state, which is clinically manifested by a lessened incidence of side effects, including those of a hemodynamic and electrophysiologic nature. While controversy continues over the cost/benefit ratio of the low osmolality contrast agents compared to traditional high osmolality agents, the former are rapidly becoming the community standard for diagnostic and especially therapeutic cardiologic procedures. Accepting the advantages of the low osmolality contrast agents, differences between the ionic dimers and the nonionic agents have been examined. Both experimental and clinical data suggest superiority of the nonionic agents. Although controversy still surrounds the issue of thromboembolism with the nonionic agents, accumulating evidence fails to support a clinically significant relation. The choice of contrast material is the responsibility of the invasive cardiologist. While the benefits of low osmolality agents are most obvious in high-risk patients, experience with large-scale intravenous studies suggests that the choice of contrast agent is a better discriminator of adverse reaction than is preprocedural risk stratification.

Hemodynamic abnormalities during coronary angiography: comparison of Hypaque-76, Hexabrix, and Omnipaque-350

The hemodynamic effects induced by coronary angiography in dogs with low osmolar ionic dimer Hexabrix (HB) and nonionic Omnipaque-350 (OM) were compared to the standard ionic contrast medium, Hypaque-76 (H76), both in the normal heart and in one with simulated severe cardiac disease. Left coronary angiography was performed in 12 "normal" closed-chest dogs with 10-cc injections of H76, HB, and OM in a randomized, blinded fashion. The maximal change in the left ventricular (LV) systolic pressure (SP), mean aortic pressure (MAP), left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP), and LV dp/dt were recorded. The LVSP and MAP fell 30 +/- 3 mm Hg and 26 +/- 4 mm Hg with H76, 22 +/- 2 mm Hg and 19 +/- 2 mm Hg with HB, and 7 +/- 1.5 mm Hg and 5 +/- 1 mm Hg with OM (P less than .001). The LVEDP increased 4.8 +/- 0.5 mm Hg with H76, 3 +/- 0.5 mm Hg with HB, but only 0.2 mm Hg with OM (P less than .001). The LV dp/dt decreased 392 +/- 63 mm Hg/sec with H76 and 235 +/- 21 mm Hg/sec with HB, but increased 411 +/- 50 mm Hg with OM (P less than .001). In eight additional open-chest dogs, left coronary angiography was performed 1 hr after occlusion of the proximal LAD coronary artery and in the presence of a critical circumflex coronary artery (CX) stenosis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Differential hemodynamic effects of Hypaque-76 and Renografin-76 during coronary angiography: the role of calcium-binding additives

Hypaque-76 (H76) and Renografin-76 (R76) are nearly identical ionic contrast media, except that R76 binds more calcium than H76 because of the presence of sodium citrate and EDTA in R76. To determine whether the calcium-binding additives in ionic contrast media contribute to the hemodynamic effects of contrast media during coronary angiography, left coronary angiography was performed in anesthetized dogs. In nine closed-chest dogs, 10 cc of H76 and R76 were injected in each dog in a blinded, randomized fashion. The effect of H76 and R76 on left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP) and left ventricular diastolic pressure (LVDP), on mean aortic pressure (MAP), and on left ventricular (LV) dp/dt was recorded. Compared with H76, R76 produced a greater decrease in the LVSP (77 +/- 25 mmHg vs 48 +/- 17 mmHg P less than .05), MAP (72 +/- 24 mmHg vs 38 +/- 18 mmHg P less than .01), and LV dp/dt (747 +/- 87 mmHg/sec vs 460 +/- 81 mmHg/sec P less than .01). In nine additional open-chest dogs, left coronary angiography was performed 1 hour after occlusion of the proximal LAD coronary artery. Seven cc R76 produced a 35 +/- 15 mmHg decrease in LVSP, compared with 20 +/- 9 mmHg with H76 (P less than .01). The LV dp/dt decreased 720 +/- 387 mmHg/sec with R76, compared with 462 +/- 222 mmHg/sec with H76 (P less than 0.05). Thus, R76 produces significantly greater hemodynamic abnormalities than H76. Contrast media lacking calcium-binding agents may be preferable for coronary angiography.

Hemodynamic effects of contrast media during coronary angiography: a comparison of three nonionic agents to Hypaque-76

Coronary angiography with standard ionic contrast media is associated with marked alterations in cardiac hemodynamics because of the depressant effects of the contrast media on cardiac contractility. Nonionic contrast media have been reported to produce less hemodynamic alteration than standard ionic contrast media. However, there is no information on how one nonionic media compares to another. Thus we compared the hemodynamic effects of three nonionic contrast media, Iopamidol (IOP), Iohexol (IOH), and Ioversol (IOV) to each other as well as to the standard ionic contrast media Hypaque-76 (H76). In 20 closed-chest anesthetized dogs, we recorded the maximal change in left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP), mean aortic pressure, left ventricular diastolic pressure (LVDP), and left ventricular dp/dt during 10-cc left main coronary artery injections of H76, IOP, IOH, and IOV. The mean aortic pressure and LVSP decreased 36 +/- 17 mm Hg and 46 +/- 21 mm Hg with H76 but only 5 +/- 5 mm Hg and 6 +/- 5 mm Hg with IOP, 5 +/- 4 mm Hg and 6 +/- 6 mm Hg with IOH, and 5 +/- 4 mm Hg and 7 +/- 6 mm Hg with IOV (P less than 0.001). The LVDP increased 6 +/- 5.0 mm Hg with H76 but only 0.2 +/- 0.5 mm Hg with IOP, 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm Hg with IOH, and 0.5 +/- 1.0 mm Hg with IOV (P less than 0.001). The LV dp/dt decreased 545 +/- 261 mm Hg/sec with H76 but increased 886 +/- 477 mm Hg/sec with IOP, 910 +/- 96 mm Hg/sec with IOH, and 473 +/- 335 mm Hg/sec with IOV (P less than 0.001). Whereas each nonionic agent produced significantly less hemodynamic abnormalities than H76, there was no significant difference between any of the nonionic agents on any hemodynamic parameter. Thus, as compared to H76, these nonionic contrast media produced only trivial alterations in hemodynamics and LV dp/dt. These agents may be preferable in patients with LV dysfunction.