Contrast-induced kidney injury: mechanisms, risk factors, and prevention. Seeliger Erdmann,Sendeski Mauricio,Rihal Charanjit S,Persson Pontus B European heart journal 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. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr494

Nephropathy after administration of iso-osmolar and low-osmolar contrast media: evidence from a network meta-analysis. Biondi-Zoccai Giuseppe,Lotrionte Marzia,Thomsen Henrik S,Romagnoli Enrico,D'Ascenzo Fabrizio,Giordano Arturo,Frati Giacomo International journal of cardiology BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) may be a severe complication to the administration of iodine-based contrast media for diagnostic or interventional procedure using radiation exposure. Whether there is a difference in nephrotoxic potential between the various agents is uncertain. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials on iodine-based contrast agents. METHODS:Randomized trials of low-osmolar or iso-osmolar contrast media were searched in CENTRAL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Scopus. Risk of CIN was appraised within a hierarchical Bayesian model computing absolute rates (AR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% credibility intervals, and probability of being best (Pbest) for each agent. RESULTS:A total of 42 trials (10048 patients) were included focusing on 7 different iodine-based contrast media. Risk of CIN was similarly low with iodixanol (AR=5.7% [2.2%-13.9%], Pbest=18.8%), iomeprol (AR=6.0% [2.2%-15.4%], Pbest=24.8%), iopamidol (AR=6.1% [2.2%-15.5%], Pbest=21.5%), and ioversol (AR=6.0% [2.1%-16.4%], Pbest=31.3%). Conversely, CIN was twice as common with iohexol (AR=11.2% [4.1%-29.5%], Pbest=0.1%) and ioxaglate (AR=11.0% [4.0%-26.9%], Pbest<0.1%), with both proving less safe than iodixanol (respectively OR=2.18 [1.22-3.92] and 2.05 [1.26-3.29]), iomeprol (OR=2.08 [1.04-4.17] and 1.96 [1.06-3.48]) and iopamidol (OR=2.04 [1.15-3.85] and 1.92 [1.06-3.45]). Data on iopromide were less conclusive (AR=6.9% [2.6%-17.1%], Pbest=3.6%). CONCLUSIONS:Iodixanol, iomeprol, iopamidol and ioversol are iodine-based contrast media with a similar renal safety profile. Iohexol and ioxaglate have a poorer renal safety profile, whereas further data may be required on iopromide. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.01.075

Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiography. Aspelin Peter,Aubry Pierre,Fransson Sven-Göran,Strasser Ruth,Willenbrock Roland,Berg Knut Joachim, The New England journal of medicine BACKGROUND:The use of iodinated contrast medium can result in nephropathy. Whether iso-osmolar contrast medium is less nephrotoxic than low-osmolar contrast medium in high-risk patients is uncertain. METHODS:We conducted a randomized, double-blind, prospective, multicenter study comparing the nephrotoxic effects of an iso-osmolar, dimeric, nonionic contrast medium, iodixanol, with those of a low-osmolar, nonionic, monomeric contrast medium, iohexol. The study involved 129 patients with diabetes with serum creatinine concentrations of 1.5 to 3.5 mg per deciliter who underwent coronary or aortofemoral angiography. The primary end point was the peak increase from base line in the creatinine concentration during the three days after angiography. Other end points were an increase in the creatinine concentration of 0.5 mg per deciliter or more, an increase of 1.0 mg per deciliter or more, and a change in the creatinine concentration from day 0 to day 7. RESULTS:The creatinine concentration increased significantly less in patients who received iodixanol. From day 0 to day 3, the mean peak increase in creatinine was 0.13 mg per deciliter in the iodixanol group and 0.55 mg per deciliter in the iohexol group (P=0.001; the increase with iodixanol minus the increase with iohexol, -0.42 mg per deciliter [95 percent confidence interval, -0.73 to -0.22]). Two of the 64 patients in the iodixanol group (3 percent) had an increase in the creatinine concentration of 0.5 mg per deciliter or more, as compared with 17 of the 65 patients in the iohexol group (26 percent) (P=0.002; odds ratio for such an increase in the iodixanol group, 0.09 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.41]). No patient receiving iodixanol had an increase of 1.0 mg per deciliter or more, but 10 patients in the iohexol group (15 percent) did. The mean change in the creatinine concentration from day 0 to day 7 was 0.07 mg per deciliter in the iodixanol group and 0.24 mg per deciliter in the iohexol group (P=0.003; value in the iodixanol group minus the value in the iohexol group, -0.17 mg per deciliter [95 percent confidence interval, -0.34 to -0.07]). CONCLUSIONS:Nephropathy induced by contrast medium may be less likely to develop in high-risk patients when iodixanol is used rather than a low-osmolar, nonionic contrast medium. 10.1056/NEJMoa021833

Differences in Adverse Reactions Among Iodinated Contrast Media: Analysis of the KAERS Database. An Jin,Jung Heewon,Kwon Oh Young,Kang Yewon,Lee Ji-Hyang,Won Ha-Kyeong,Song Woo-Jung,Kwon Hyouk-Soo,Cho You Sook,Moon Hee-Bom,Kim Tae-Bum The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice BACKGROUND:The various adverse drug reactions (ADRs) arise from different types of iodinated contrast media (ICM). OBJECTIVE:Thus, we investigated the occurrence rate and types of ADRs according to the total usage cases of the 7 most common ICM. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 74,242 causal ADRs caused by ICM from the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database between January 2014 and December 2016. The 11,712,796 total usage cases that represent all administrations of ICM reported from individual medical institutions were received from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. A proportionality test was used to examine the differences in the frequency ratio of causal ADRs to total usage cases. RESULTS:Immediate hypersensitivity (44,467 cases, 88.56%) occurred more frequently than delayed hypersensitivity (5,725 cases, 11.4%; P < .001). The overall occurrence rate of causal ADRs and serious ADRs considering total usage cases was 0.37% and 0.02%, respectively (P < .001). The ICM most commonly resulting in ADRs were iomeprol (0.7%) and iopromide (0.59%). The serious ADRs were most common for iomeprol (0.05%). When ADRs were classified according to the system organ class, "skin and appendages disorders" (47,065 cases, 63.4%) occurred most common. Iodixanol resulted in the highest frequency of "urinary system disorders." CONCLUSIONS:By comparison of the ADRs considering total usage cases, the incidence and classification of ADRs were different for each contrast medium. A prospective study is needed because the differences in these 7 major contrast media may assist in the selection of ICM tailored for each patient. 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.02.035