Nephrotoxicity

Comparative investigation of i.v. iohexol and iopamidol: effect on renal function in low-risk outpatients undergoing CT

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the effects of i.v. iohexol and iopamidol on renal function in outpatients undergoing CT.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of 389 adults with low risk for contrast-induced nephropathy, comparing i.v. iohexol with iopamidol (300 mg I/mL). Serum creatinine (SCr) concentration was measured at baseline and 2 and 3 days after contrast administration. A noninferiority analysis was planned to compare the mean maximum SCr change from baseline between subject groups. Contrast-induced nephropathy rates (three definitions) for both contrast agents were compared as a secondary end point.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety and 199 subjects received iohexol and iopamidol, respectively. The mean change in SCr from baseline using the maximum day 2 or 3 measurement was 0.07 ± 0.12 mg/dL (95% CI, 0.05-0.09 mg/dL) for the iohexol group and 0.05 ± 0.12 mg/dL (95% CI, 0.03-0.07 mg/dL) for the iopamidol group. The difference between contrast agents with respect to the mean change in SCr from baseline was -0.02 ± 0.12 mg/dL (95% CI, -0.045 to 0.003 mg/dL; p = 0.08). Contrast-induced nephropathy rates were not statistically different using any definition.

CONCLUSION

Although our results were unable to show absolute noninferiority of iohexol compared with iopamidol because of a very small difference in increase in mean SCr from baseline (using a noninferiority margin of 0.04 mg/dL), this difference is likely of minimal or no clinical importance in outpatients undergoing CT with low risk for contrast-induced nephropathy.

ESUR guidelines on contrast media

Since 1996 the Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology has released 15 guidelines regarding safety in relation to the use of radiographic, ultrasonographic, and magnetic resonance contrast media. The guidelines have been well received by the radiologic community in Europe and all over the world and comprise current standards for good practice at many institutions. The present report is an overview of the work accomplished by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology over the past 8 years. The committee has covered renal and nonrenal adverse events and other aspects of contrast media.

Low risk of contrast-medium-induced nephropathy with modern angiographic technique

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN

A retrospective study of the incidence of contrast-medium-induced nephropathy (CMN) in patients with renal insufficiency.

SUBJECTS

All angiographies with and without endovascular therapeutic procedures (n = 2400) performed at the hospital during 1 year were evaluated. A total of 139 patients were found to have a preangiographic serum-creatinine (s-Cr) of 150 micromol L(-1) or above. Postprocedural serial s-Cr values were present in 118 patients and these were included in the study.

RESULTS

Amongst patients receiving only iodinated contrast media (CM) 8% demonstrated a 25% rise in s-Cr. The corresponding figure was 11 and 12.5% amongst patients who were given either iodinated CM together with carbon dioxide (CO2) or CO2 as sole contrast medium. After exclusion of other explanations of impaired renal function all together only seven of 114 patients (6%) were considered to have developed CMN. Four of the seven patients restituted renal function completely, whilst it remained decreased in three. No patient required dialysis. The percentage of diabetic patients were not found to be different in patients with and without signs of CMN.

CONCLUSIONS

The present retrospective study indicate that the risk of CMN in connection with angiography is low when modern low-osmolality CM and contrast saving angiographic technique including CO2 is used combined with proper hydration. Patients with diabetes mellitus were not found more frequently in the groups with CMN.

Does post-angiographic hemodialysis reduce the risk of contrast-medium nephropathy?

OBJECTIVE

Several strategies have been employed to reduce the incidence of nephrotoxicity in connection with the administration of urographic contrast media. We present the results of a randomized study to explore the effect of a single hemodialysis treatment immediately after an angiographic examination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The patients studied had moderately reduced renal function. Seventeen of the 32 patients had diabetic nephropathy and 15 had other renal diseases. They were randomly selected to undergo either hemodialysis or standard treatment following the angiographic examination. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was determined the day before and 1 week after administration of the contrast medium. All patients were hydrated and received oral calcium-channel blocking treatment before angiography.

RESULTS

Hemodialysis lowered the level of contrast medium in plasma by approximately 80%. In spite of this no significant difference in renal iohexol clearance was noted between groups treated and not treated with hemodialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of a marked and sustained reduction in renal function after administration of an iodine contrast medium is low with modern angiographic techniques. Hemodialysis reduces levels of contrast media in plasma but does not reduce the incidence of contrast-medium-induced nephrotoxicity in the GFR range from 10 to 25 ml/min.