Comparison of iodixanol and iohexol in patients undergoing intravenous pyelography: a prospective controlled study

A Case of Severe Lethal Allergic Reaction Caused by Iodixanol After Digital Subtraction Angiography

BACKGROUND

Severe lethal allergic reactions triggered by iodixanol following digital subtraction angiography (DSA) are rare. The majority of skin reactions associated with iodixanol were mild, and the prognosis was favorable. Moreover, a case of serious skin adverse events caused by iodixanol has been documented.

METHODS

A 61-year-old woman underwent surgery for a cerebral hemorrhage in another hospital. Upon the surgery, the patient's state of impaired consciousness did not show any improvement. Head computed tomography angiography on admission: right middle cerebral artery M1 segment enlargement, left posterior cerebral artery P2 stenosis. Following undergoing DSA with iodixanol, the patient experienced severe and fatal drug eruptions, which represents a serious and uncommon complication associated with iodixanol.

RESULTS

This paper describes the experience in the treatment and nursing of severe allergic reactions. Despite the fact that the patient was discharged automatically and eventually died, there are valuable lessons to be learned from this case that can inform and guide future clinical practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Iodixanol adverse reactions were rare, and severe fatal adverse reactions were seldom reported. Consequently, the authors conclude that the potential adverse reaction risk of iodixanol contrast agent should be taken into consideration in future endeavors, and the skin and allergy of patients should be monitored following DSA. In an allergy, prompt and proactive treatment is essential to prevent worsening and dissemination.

Comparative effect of iso-osmolar versus low-osmolar contrast media on the incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) is a major adverse effect caused by intravascular administration of iodinated contrast medium. Whether there is a difference in CI-AKI incidence between iso-osmolar (IOCM) and low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) among diabetic patients is controversial.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing the nephrotoxic effects between IOCM and LOCM in diabetic patients with or without CKD (eGFR< 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) were included in the analysis. The incidence of CI-AKI was defined as an initial increase in serum creatinine (SCr) concentration of at least 0.5 mg/dl or a rise in creatinine of 25% from baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 2190 patients were included, among whom 1122 patients received IOCM and 1068 received LOCM. When compared to LOCM, IOCM had no significant benefit in preventing CI-AKI (OR = 1.66, [CI: 0.97-2.84], P = 0.06, I2 = 54%). However, the difference between IOCM and LOCM was found when CI-AKI was defined as an absolute SCr increase (≥0.5 mg/dl) rather than a relative SCr increase (≥25%). Further analysis showed that LOCM resulted in more adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether there is a difference of CI-AKI incidence between IOCM and LOCM in diabetic patients was related to the selected diagnostic criteria. The incidence of adverse events was significantly lower with IOCM when compared with LOCM. Therefore, we suggest that IOCM may be used in diabetic and CKD (eGFR< 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) patients.

Contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus between iso- and low-osmolar contrast media: A meta-analysis of full-text prospective, randomized controlled trials

Purpose

This study was conducted to compare iso-osmolar contrast medium, iodixanol, with low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) for assessing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) incidence, exclusively in the diabetic population.

Method

A systematic search was conducted for full-text, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was incidence of CIN. Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources were searched until May 31, 2017.

Results

Twelve RCTs finally met the search criteria. Iodixanol did not significantly reduce the risk of CIN (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.49, 1.04], p = 0.08). However, there was significantly reduced risk of CIN when iodixanol was compared to a LOCM agent iohexol (RR: 0.32, 95% CI [0.12, 0.89]). There were no differences between iodixanol and the other non-iohexol LOCM (RR: 0.92, 95% CI [0.68, 1.25]).

Conclusion

In diabetic populations, iodixanol is not associated with a significant reduction of CIN risk. Iodixanol is associated with a reduced risk of CIN compared with iohexol, whereas no significant difference between iodixanol and other LOCM could be found.

Renal Safety of Iodinated Contrast Media Depending on Their Osmolarity - Current Outlooks

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) are commonly administered pharmaceutical agents. Most often they are used intravenously and intraarterially. Although iodinated contrast agents are relatively safe and widely used, adverse events occur and questions remain about their use, safety, and interactions. The most important adverse effects of contrast media include hypersensitivity reactions, thyroid dysfunction, and contrast-induced nephropathy. Radiologists must be aware of the risk factors for reactions to contrast media. Nonionic iodinated contrast agents can be divided into monomeric, low-osmolar, and dimeric, iso-osmolar classes. The osmotic characteristics of contrast media have been a significant focus in many investigations of contrast-induced nephropathy.

Contrast-induced Nephropathy

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a serious complication of angiographic procedures resulting from the administration of contrast media (CM). It is the third most common cause of hospital acquired acute renal injury and represents about 12% of the cases. CIN is defined as an elevation of serum creatinine (Scr) of more than 25% or ≥0.5 mg/dl (44 μmol/l) from baseline within 48 h. More sensitive markers of renal injury are desired, therefore, several biomarkers of tubular injury are under evaluation. Multiple risk factors may contribute to the development of CIN; these factors are divided into patient- and procedure-related factors. Treatment of CIN is mainly supportive, consisting mainly of careful fluid and electrolyte management, although dialysis may be required in some cases. The available treatment option makes prevention the corner stone of management. This article will review the recent evidence concerning CIN incidence, diagnosis, and prevention strategies as well as its treatment and prognostic implications.

Preventing radiocontrast-induced nephropathy in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing coronary angiography

Radiocontrast-induced nephropathy (RCIN) is an acute and severe complication after coronary angiography, particularly for patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD). It has been associated with both short- and long-term adverse outcomes, including the need for renal replacement therapy, increased length of hospital stay, major cardiac adverse events, and mortality. RCIN is generally defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of 0.5 mg/dL or 25% above baseline within 48 h after contrast administration. There is no effective therapy once injury has occurred, therefore, prevention is the cornerstone for all patients at risk for acute kidney injury (AKI). There is a small but growing body of evidence that prevention of AKI is associated with a reduction in later adverse outcomes. The optimal strategy for preventing RCIN has not yet been established. This review discusses the principal risk factors for RCIN, evaluates and summarizes the evidence for RCIN prophylaxis, and proposes recommendations for preventing RCIN in CKD patients undergoing coronary angiography.

Contrast-induced kidney injury: mechanisms, risk factors, and prevention

In general, iodinated contrast media (CM) are tolerated well, and CM use is steadily increasing. Acute kidney injury is the leading life-threatening side effect of CM. Here, we highlight endpoints used to assess CM-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI), CM types, risk factors, and CIAKI prevention. Moreover, we put forward a unifying theory as to how CIAKI comes about; the kidney medulla's unique hyperosmolar environment concentrates CM in the tubules and vasculature. Highly concentrated CM in the tubules and vessels increases fluid viscosity. Thus, flow through medullary tubules and vessels decreases. Reducing the flow rate will increase the contact time of cytotoxic CM with the tubular epithelial cells and vascular endothelium, and thereby damage cells and generate oxygen radicals. As a result, medullary vasoconstriction takes place, causing hypoxia. Moreover, the glomerular filtration rate declines due to congestion of highly viscous tubular fluid. Effective prevention aims at reducing the medullary concentration of CM, thereby diminishing fluid viscosity. This is achieved by generous hydration using isotonic electrolyte solutions. Even forced diuresis may prove efficient if accompanied by adequate volume supplementation. Limiting the CM dose is the most effective measure to diminish fluid viscosity and to reduce cytotoxic effects.

Meta-analysis: serum creatinine changes following contrast enhanced CT imaging

PURPOSE

Contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) is defined as a decrease in renal function following administration of contrast media. The aim of this meta-analysis was to asses the overall risk of CIN, chronic loss of kidney function and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) after intravenous contrast enhanced CT-scan. Secondly, we aimed to identify subgroups at increased risk for CIN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search in Pubmed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. Data extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using an exact likelihood approach.

RESULTS

Forty studies evaluating the incidence of CIN after CT were included. The pooled incidence of CIN was 6.4% (95% CI 5.0-8.1). The risk of RRT after CIN was low, 0.06% (95% CI 0.01-0.4). The decline in renal function persisted in 1.1% of patients (95% CI 0.6-2.1%). Patients with chronic kidney disease (odds ratio 2.26, p<0.001) or diabetes mellitus (odds ratio 3.10, p<0.001) were at increased risk for the development of CIN.

CONCLUSION

CIN occurred in 6% of patients after contrast enhanced CT. In 1% of all patients undergoing contrast enhanced CT the decline in renal function persisted.

Effects of Intra-Arterial and Intravenous Iso-Osmolar Contrast Medium (Iodixanol) on the Risk of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The iso-osmolar contrast agent iodixanol may be associated with a lower incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) than low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), but previous meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. Objectives: To compare the incidence of CI-AKI between iodixanol and LOCM. METHODS: Studies were identified from literature searches to December 2009, clinicaltrials.gov, and conference abstracts from the past 2 years including 2010. Only prospective, randomized comparisons between iodixanol and LOCM with CI-AKI [increase in serum creatinine (sCr) ≥0.5 mg/dl or ≥25% from baseline, as defined in the trial] as a primary and/or secondary endpoint and a Jadad score ≥2 were included. A random-effects model was used to obtain pooled relative risks (RRs) for CI-AKI in analyses based on route of administration [intra-arterial (IA) or intravenous (IV)], definition of CI-AKI, and timing of sCr measurements. RESULTS: 145 potential articles were identified, of which 25 were included in the meta-analysis. Following IA administration (n = 19), the RR for CI-AKI (≥0.5 mg/dl definition) with iodixanol, compared with LOCM, was 0.462 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.272-0.786, p = 0.004, 15 studies]. Using the ≥25% definition, there was a lower incidence of CI-AKI with iodixanol versus LOCM, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR: 0.577, 95% CI: 0.297-1.12, p = 0.104, 11 studies). In the IV trials, there was no significant difference in the incidence of CI-AKI using either definition (≥0.5 mg/dl definition: RR: 0.967, 95% CI: 0.188-4.972, p = 0.968, 3 trials; ≥25% definition: RR: 0.656, 95% CI: 0.316-1.360, p = 0.257, 4 trials). CONCLUSIONS: IA but not IV administration of iodixanol is associated with a significantly lower risk of CI-AKI than LOCM.

Contrast induced nephropathy in urology

Intravenous contrast agents have a distinct role in urological imaging: to study precise anatomical delineation, vascularity, and to assess the function of the renal unit. Contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) is a known adverse effect of intravenous contrast administration. The literature on incidence, pathophysiology, clinical features, and current preventive strategies available for CIN relevant to urologists was reviewed. A search of the PubMed database was done using the keywords nephropathy and media, prevention and control or prevention Contrast media (explode), all adverse effects, and kidney diseases (explode). An online search of the EMBASE database for the time ranging from 1977 to February 2009 was performed using the keywords ionic contrast medium, adverse drug reaction, major or controlled clinical study, human, nephrotoxicity, and kidney disease. Current publications and data most relevant to urologists were examined. CIN was the third most common cause of hospital-acquired renal failure. The incidence is less common with intravenous contrast administration as compared with intra-arterial administration. The pathogenesis of contrast mediated nephropathy is due to a combination of toxic injury to renal tubules and medullary ischemic injury mediated by reactive oxygen species. CIN most commonly manifests as a nonoliguric and asymptomatic transient decline in renal function. Patients who developed CIN were found to have increased mortality, longer hospital stay, and complicated clinical course. An overview of risk factors and risk prediction score for prognostication of CIN are elaborated. Preventive strategies including choice of contrast agents, maximum tolerated dose, role of hydration, hydration regime, etc. are discussed. The role of N- acetyl cysteine, Theophylline, Fenoldapam, Endothelin receptor antagonists, iloprost, atrial natriuretic peptide, and newer therapies such as targeted renal therapy (TRT) are discussed. A working algorithm based on current evidence is proposed. No current treatment can reverse or ameliorate CIN once it occurs, but prophylaxis is possible.

Creatinine increases after intravenous contrast administration: incidence and impact

OBJECTIVE

The incidence of creatinine increases after intravenous contrast (postcontrast creatinine increases, PCCI) is controversial, ranging from 0% to >25%. We sought to determine what factors influenced these divergent estimates of PCCI incidence. Where possible, the association of PCCI with long-term adverse outcomes was also studied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Both observational studies and prospective randomized trials were reviewed. Definitions of clinically significant PCCI, incidence of PCCI, and its association with baseline kidney function, the setting in which intravenous contrast was administered, and the short- and long-term consequences of PCCI were extracted.

RESULTS

Baseline renal function impairment and inpatient versus outpatient status are the major risk factors for PCCI. PCCI is possibly associated with clinically significant short- and long-term adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

PCCI occurs despite a number of potential confounding issues. The incidence is increased as kidney function at baseline is diminished and for inpatients. There is limited data on long-term outcomes following PCCI in this setting.

Strategies for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The intravascular administration of iodinated contrast media for diagnostic imaging is a common cause of acute kidney injury and a leading cause of iatrogenic renal disease. The purpose of this review is to describe the principal risk factors for contrast-induced acute kidney injury and to summarize recent data describing the efficacy of various preventive interventions for this condition.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whereas earlier studies suggested that certain low-osmolal contrast agents including iohexol and ioxaglate are more nephrotoxic than iso-osmolal iodixanol, recent clinical trials and meta-analyses comparing other low-osmolal contrast agents with iodixanol have found little difference in risk. The provision of prophylactic renal replacement therapy does not ameliorate the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, and likely poses undue risk. Despite some research supporting a benefit of atrial natriuretic peptide, statins, and prostaglandin analogs, additional data from large, adequately powered studies are needed before these agents can be recommended. N-Acetylcysteine and isotonic intravenous bicarbonate have been investigated intensely, yet the data on these interventions are conflicting due to methodological limitations in past studies.

SUMMARY

Prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury involves the identification of high-risk patients, consideration of alternative imaging procedures that do not involve the administration of iodinated contrast, and integration of the cumulative data available on preventive interventions in high-risk patients.

Iodixanol Versus Low-Osmolar Contrast Media for Prevention of Contrast Induced Nephropathy

Background—

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The objective of our meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) for prevention of CIN.

Methods and Results—

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and internet sources of cardiology trial results for individual and relevant reviews of randomized, controlled trials, for the terms contrast media, contrast nephropathy, renal failure, iodixanol, Visipaque, and low-osmolar contrast media. All studies reported an incidence rate of CIN for each study group; there was no restriction on the definition of CIN. There were no restrictions on journal type or patient population. Overall, 36 trials were identified for analysis of aggregated summary data on 7166 patients; 3672 patients received iodixanol and 3494 patients received LOCM. Overall, iodixanol showed no statistically significant reduction in CIN incidence below that observed with heterogeneous comparator agents ( P =0.11). Analysis of patient subgroups revealed that there was a significant benefit of iodixanol when compared with iohexol alone (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.55; P <0.001) but not when compared with LOCM other than iohexol or with other ionic dimers or among patients receiving intra-arterial contrast injections or among patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous intervention.

Conclusions—

Analysis of aggregated summary data from multiple randomized, controlled trials of iodixanol against diverse LOCMs for heterogeneous procedures and definitions of CIN show an iodixanol-associated reduction that is suggestive but statistically nonsignificant.