Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines.
ABSTRACT PURPOSE: The Contrast Media Safety Committee (CMSC) of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) has updated its 1999 guidelines on contrast medium-induced nephropathy (CIN). AREAS COVERED: Topics reviewed include the definition of CIN, the choice of contrast medium, the prophylactic measures used to reduce the incidence of CIN, and the management of patients receiving metformin. Key Points • Definition, risk factors and prevention of contrast medium induced nephropathy are reviewed. • CIN risk is lower with intravenous than intra-arterial iodinated contrast medium. • eGFR of 45 ml/min/1.73 m (2) is CIN risk threshold for intravenous contrast medium. • Hydration with either saline or sodium bicarbonate reduces CIN incidence. • Patients with eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m (2) receiving contrast medium can continue metformin normally.
- SourceAvailable from: openrepository.com[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury, also referred to as contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), is a potentially serious renal complication associated with the use of iodinated contrast media (CM) in patients at risk. With the dramatic growth in contrast-enhanced imaging services worldwide, including procedures involving exposure to iodinated CM, efforts to reduce the occurrence of CIN have received considerable attention in recent years. To date, these efforts have met with little success since the 12% prevalence of CIN today remains unchanged from 2 decades ago. We conducted a systematic literature review of the most recent evidence available from published reports of contemporary (2000-2008) prospective, randomized, controlled trials that have investigated CIN either by comparing CM or by comparing preventive strategies. The objective was to critically review the findings in light of several aspects of study design and then to establish a set of parameters for consideration in the planning of future CIN trials so as to optimize the strength of evidence obtained. Whether future CIN trials are investigating comparative CM nephrotoxicity or dealing with prophylactic strategies for risk reduction, the complexities that must be addressed include a standardized definition of CIN, appropriate timing of SCr measurements with timing standardized for all subjects in a given study population, awareness of study population risk profile, hydration protocols, and pharmacological prophylactic strategies. Large, well-designed trials (ideally with hard clinical outcome measures) that consider all the complexities involved in CIN and its prevention are needed before the clinical community has the evidence-based direction required for optimized patient care.Journal of nephrology 22(3):333-51. · 2.02 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Radiological procedures require the intravascular administration of iodinated contrast media, which are becoming a great source of an iatrogenic disease known as contrast-induced nephropathy. The development of contrast-induced nephropathy is associated with prolonged hospitalization, the potential need for renal replacement therapy, and increased mortality. Despite numerous clinical and experimental studies, several important issues regarding contrast-induced nephropathy remain controversial. One of the controversial points is its very definition: a universally accepted definition of contrast-induced nephropathy does not exist. This can be a major problem. Differing definitions of contrast-induced nephropathy and the clinical importance of these definitions were discussed in this letter.Renal Failure 02/2007; 29(3):387-8. · 0.94 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Most studies of contrast-induced nephropathy lack controls to distinguish it from nephropathy from other causes. We assessed the frequency and magnitude of serum creatinine changes in patients not receiving iodinated contrast material to compare with creatinine changes in publications regarding contrast nephropathy. From the electronic medical records of an academic medical center, adults with creatinine determinations on five consecutive days who had not received contrast material during the previous 10 days were identified. The first creatinine level was compared with those on subsequent days. We calculated the frequency with which these levels exceeded thresholds used to identify contrast nephropathy in previous publications. Among 32,161 patients, more than half showed a change of at least 25% and more than two fifths, a change of at least 0.4 mg/dL. Among patients with baseline creatinine levels of 0.6-1.2 mg/dL, increases of at least 25%, 33%, and 50% occurred in 27%, 19%, and 11% of patients, respectively. Increases of 0.4, 0.6, and 1.0 mg/dL occurred in 13%, 7%, and 3% of patients. Among patients with baseline creatinine levels greater than 2.0 mg/dL, increases of at least 25%, 33%, and 50% occurred in 16%, 12%, and 7%. Increases of 0.4, 0.6, and 1.0 mg/dL occurred in 33%, 26%, and 18%. These increases were not different from the incidences of contrast nephropathy previously published. The creatinine level increases in patients who are not receiving contrast material as often as it does in published series of patients who are receiving contrast material. The role of contrast material in nephropathy may have been overestimated.American Journal of Roentgenology 08/2008; 191(2):376-82. · 2.90 Impact Factor