Published online May 26, 2012. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v4.i5.157
Revised: March 16, 2012
Accepted: March 23, 2012
Published online: May 26, 2012
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.
- Citation: Hung YM, Lin SL, Hung SY, Huang WC, Wang PYP. Preventing radiocontrast-induced nephropathy in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing coronary angiography. World J Cardiol 2012; 4(5): 157-172
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8462/full/v4/i5/157.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v4.i5.157
Over the past decade there has been dramatic growth worldwide in contrast-enhanced imaging services, many involving exposure to iodinated contrast media[1,2]. Acute deterioration in renal function due to contrast media administration is a well-recognized complication after coronary angiography, particularly for patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD)[2-5]. Previous studies have shown that 12%-14% of patients who develop acute renal insufficiency during hospitalization do so after procedures involving radiographic contrast[6,7]. For patients with abnormal baseline renal function, the incidence of progressive deterioration can be as high as 42%[2,8].
Radiocontrast-induced nephropathy (RCIN), also called radiocontrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI), is associated with increased health resource utilization, prolonged hospital stay, increased in-hospital and long-term mortality, and an acceleration in the rate of progression of CKD[6,9-13]. It has been associated with both short- and long-term adverse outcomes, including the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and major cardiac adverse events. Importantly, RCIN is associated with increased short- and long-term mortality[14-16].
RCIN has gained increased attention in the clinical setting, particularly during cardiac intervention, but also in many other radiological procedures in which iodinated contrast media are used. There are at least four factors explaining that the incidence of RCIN is likely to increase in the future[17,18]. First, CKD, which is a principal risk factor for RCIN, is likely to continue to grow in prevalence. Second, diabetes mellitus, which amplifies the risk for RCIN in patients with underlying CKD, is also increasing in prevalence. Third, the world population is aging, and more elderly patients are undergoing contrast-enhanced procedures. Fourth, patients with advanced CKD have been shown to be at risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis; a potentially debilitating disorder that is associated with the administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents[17]. As a result, many patients with CKD, who in recent years would have undergone contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography, are now likely to undergo conventional angiography with iodinated contrast, thus, increasing the number of patients at risk for RCIN[18].
RCIN has been defined as the acute deterioration of renal function after parenteral administration of radiocontrast media in the absence of other causes[19]. Unfortunately, the definition of RCIN has not been consistent in the literature, which makes the comparison of data from various studies difficult. It is generally defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of 0.5 mg/dL (44 mmol/L) or 25% above baseline within 48 h after contrast administration[20-24]. There is no effective therapy once injury has occurred, therefore, prevention is the cornerstone for all patients at risk for AKI. There is a small but growing body of evidence showing that prevention of AKI is associated with a reduction in adverse outcomes[25]. The optimal strategy for preventing RCIN has not yet been established. This review discusses the principal risk factors for RCIN and current interventions, as well as evidence behind each intervention for preventing RCIN in patients with baseline renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography.
The pathophysiology of RCIN in humans is not clearly established, and is probably multifactorial. It is hypothesized that a combination of ischemia due to vasoconstriction and direct toxicity to the renal tubules mediated via reactive oxygen species leads to RCIN[26]. Intra-arterial infusion of contrast medium results in initial vasodilation, followed by vasoconstriction, accompanied by shunting of blood flow from the medulla to the cortex, with a net result of a 20% increase in blood flow to the cortex and a 40% decrease in blood flow to the medulla; the medullary ischemia that ensues is thought to contribute to tubular injury[27]. Direct cytotoxicity to the tubular epithelial cells has been demonstrated, as demonstrated by vacuolization and tubular epithelial cell death. In addition, production of reactive oxygen species and subsequent tubular damage have been demonstrated in several animal studies[27].
Many risk factors have been described for RCIN, among which pre-existing renal disease is the most important. The increasing levels of renal impairment have been associated with escalating levels of risk[28]. Among patients in the Minnesota Registry of Interventional Cardiac Procedures, RCIN was diagnosed in 22% of patients with serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL and in 30% of patients with serum creatinine > 3 mg/dL[16]. Diabetes, increased age, higher dose of contrast agent, route of contrast administration (intra-arterial vs intravenous), congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, periprocedural shock, baseline anemia, postprocedural drop in hematocrit, use of nephrotoxins, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, volume depletion, increased creatine kinase-MB, and need for cardiac surgery after contrast exposure, have been associated with increased risk of RCIN[16,29]. Prior studies have shown that procedural issues such as the amount and type of contrast administered[30-32] could be the additional risk factors. Risk factor scoring (including both baseline comorbidity and procedural factors) has been used to predict the incidence of RCIN, need for RRT, and long-term mortality[33,34]. They have been developed to identify modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for RCIN. Mehran et al[33] have published a simple risk score of RCIN including both preprocedural and periprocedural risk factors. Mehran’s model includes CHF, hypotension, intra-aortic balloon pump, age > 75 years, anemia, diabetes mellitus, contrast volume, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)[33]. Brown et al[34] have developed a similar model but restricted it to only preprocedural risk factors that would be accessible for clinicians to ascribe risk of RCIN prior to the case. They found preprocedural serum creatinine, CHF, and diabetes accounted for > 75% of the predictive model, whereas other factors accounting for the remainder of the risk model were urgent and emergency priority, preprocedural intra-aortic balloon pump use, age ≥ 80 years, and female sex[34,35]. Both models have identified potentially modifiable risk factors that include priority of the procedure, baseline renal function, diabetes, and contrast volume[35] (Table 1). The unfavorable prognostic implications of RCIN make preventing the condition of paramount importance, especially in the performing of some targeted interventions focus on the modifiable risk factors to reduce this risk[35,36].
| Modifiable risk factors |
| Higher dose of contrast agent used |
| Congestive heart failure |
| Periprocedural shock |
| Anemia or postprocedural drop in hematocrit |
| Use of nephrotoxins |
| Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications |
| Dehydration |
| Hypertension or blood pressure control |
| Diabetes mellitus or sugar control |
| Increased CK-MB |
| Urgent or emergency priority of the procedure |
| Need for cardiac surgery after contrast exposure |
| Preprocedural intra-aortic balloon pump use |
| Non-modifiable risk factors |
| Age > 75 yr |
| Female sex |
| Baseline renal function |
Although the treatment of established RCIN is limited to supportive care and dialysis, the renal injury resulting from iodinated contrast exposure is potentially preventable[18]. Multiple interventions have been investigated for their capacity to prevent RCIN. The initial steps in reducing the risk of kidney injury are looking for risk factors and reviewing the indications for the administration of contrast medium. Most risk factors can be detected by history taking and physical examination. Factors such as dehydration can be at least partially corrected before exposure to the contrast medium[37]. According to the statement of Weisbord et al[18], efforts to find effective preventive interventions for RCIN have focused on four principal strategies: (1)administration of less nephrotoxic contrast agents; (2) provision of pre-emptive RRT to remove contrast from the circulation; (3) utilization of pharmacological agents to counteract the nephrotoxic effects of contrast media; and (4) expansion of the intravascular space and enhanced diuresis with intravenous fluids.
The correlation between the amount of contrast and risk of RCIN has been reported in several studies[6,12,30,31,33,38,39]. According to McCullough et al[6], the risk of RCIN is minimal in patients receiving < 100 mL contrast. In another study in the diabetic population, RCIN developed in approximately every fifth, fourth and second patient who received 200-400, 400-600 and > 600 mL contrast, respectively[38]. In one observational study[31] of 561 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who were undergoing primary angioplasty, higher amounts of contrast volume were associated with higher rates of RCIN and mortality. Kane et al[40] have determined in a multivariate analysis that the only predictor of RCIN in patients with pre-existing CKD was volume of contrast administered. They found that very-high-risk patients undergoing coronary arteriography who received 14 ± 4 mL contrast had a 4.4% incidence of RCIN; whereas those receiving 61 ± 12 mL had a 29.8% incidence. Thus, minimizing contrast media amount is the key element in preventing renal function impairment in patients undergoing cardiovascular intervention[36].
Some researchers have studied the relationship between the maximum radiographic contrast dose (MCD), baseline renal function, and risk of RCIN after angiography[8,31,40-42]. The MCD was calculated using the following formula: 5 mL contrast medium/kg body weight (maximum 300 mL) divided by serum creatinine (mg/dL)[41]. This calculated MCD was validated in 115 patients with CKD (creatinine > 1.8 mg/dL) undergoing angiography over a 10-year period[8]. Liu et al[41] have used the ratio of contrast media volume/estimated glomerular filtration rate, or V/eGFR to evaluate the RCIN in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary PCI. They reported that a V/eGFR ratio ≥ 2.39 was a significant and independent predictor of RCIN in their series. In another registry of > 16 000 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) by Freeman et al[42], the strongest independent predictor of nephropathy requiring dialysis in patients undergoing elective coronary interventions was exceeding the calculated MCD. Patients who received a volume of contrast that exceeded the MCD were six times more likely to develop RCIN. Recently, Marenzi et al[31] have defined the contrast ratio as the ratio between the contrast volume administered and the MCD. They have demonstrated that patients who received more than the MCD had a more complicated in-hospital clinical course and a higher RCIN rate than patients administered less contrast volume than the MCD (35% vs 6%, P < 0.001). Serum creatinine, especially in the elderly and female populations, who have low muscle mass, is an inexact measure of renal function, therefore, it is more accurate, and should be routine, to estimate creatinine clearance by the Cockroft-Gault formula or eGFR calculated using the modification of diet in renal disease equation for adults[31]. According to Laskey et al[43], the ratio of the volume of contrast to creatinine clearance (V/CrCl) of > 3.7 is a good predictor of RCIN.
Contrast media are classified by their osmolality: high osmolar contrast media (HOCM), 2000 mOsm/kg; low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), 600-800 mOsm/kg; and iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM), 290 mOsm/kg[44]. Over the past 40 years, the osmolality of available contrast media has been gradually decreased to physiological levels. In the 1950s, only HOCM (e.g., diatrizoate) with osmolality 5-8 times that of plasma were available. In the 1980s, LOCM agents such as iohexol, iopamidol and ioxaglate were introduced with osmolality 2-3 times greater than that of plasma. In the 1990s, iso-osmolar nonionic iodixanol with the same physiological osmolality as blood was developed[45]. The impact of contrast media osmolality on the incidence of RCIN had been assessed in several randomized trials. In a meta-analysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of the HOCM and LOCM reported in 1993, the pooled OR for the incidence of contrast-induced AKI events in 25 trials was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.77) times that after HOCM, indicating a significant reduction in risk with LOCM compared to HOCM[46]. In a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 1196 patients, Rudnick et al[47] demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of RCIN (as defined by an increase in serum creatinine > 1 mg/dL at 48-72 h post-procedure) with the use of LOCM iohexol (3%), as compared with HOCM diatrizoate (7%, P < 0.002) in patients with pre-existent renal insufficiency, independent of the presence of diabetes mellitus.
More recent studies have focused on the comparative nephrotoxicity of IOCM iodixanol, and various LOCM. Several studies have evaluated whether an IOCM might provide a similar benefit over LOCM agents, but no consensus has emerged. Some randomized trials have suggested a lower incidence of RCIN with iodixanol in high-risk patients[48-52], while some other clinical trials have failed to show a benefit from use of IOCM[53-60]. A recent multicenter trial (ACTIVE trial) even demonstrated favorable results for LOCM (iomeprol) compared to IOCM (iodixanol), and the authors concluded that LOCM appeared to have a protective effect compared to IOCM (0% vs 6.9%)[61]. Of particular interest, Wessely et al[57] randomized 324 patients with CKD undergoing coronary angiography with PCI to receive either iodixanol or the low osmolar agent iomeprol. The primary endpoint was the peak increase in serum creatinine during hospitalization for PCI. They found contrast-medium-induced nephropathy rates were lower with iodixanol (22.2% vs 27.8% for iomeprol), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.25). However, subgroup analysis suggested a favorable outcome regarding nephrotoxicity in patients who received higher contrast volumes (> 340 mL) in the iodixanol group compared with the LOCM group (P = 0.016).
The disparate results of these previous 14 clinical trials led to a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing the nephrotoxicity of IOCM iodixanol and various LOCM; five of which have now been published[32,62-66]. Among earlier meta-analyses by McCullough et al[62], pooled data from 2727 patients from 16 double-blind, RCTs have indicated that use of the IOCM iodixanol is associated with smaller rises in creatinine and lower rates of RCIN than LOCM (1.4% vs 3.5%, P < 0.001), especially in patients with CKD or CKD and diabetes mellitus. Solomon has published a systematic review of prospective, randomized, controlled studies of RCIN in 1365 renal impaired patients receiving intra-arterial doses of the IOCM, iodixanol, or other LOCM, and conducted a pooled analysis of the data from those studies to determine whether the osmolality of contrast media was predictive of RCIN incidence. This review[63] found a significant difference in RCIN rates between iopamidol and iohexol (11.3% vs 21.6%, P = 0.0001), and between iodixanol and iohexol (9.5% vs 21.6%, P < 0.0001). A multivariate logistic regression model showed that the risk of RCIN was similar with the IOCM iodixanol and the LOCM iopamidol. Heinrich et al[64] have found that iodixanol is not associated with a significantly reduced risk of RCIN compared with the LOCM. However, in patients with intra-arterial administration and renal insufficiency, iodixanol is associated with a reduced risk of RCIN compared with iohexol, whereas no significant difference between iodixanol and other LOCM was found. Reed et al[32] have compared iodixanol to several LOCM and found no difference in the incidence of RCIN when they compared iodixanol to all LOCM pooled together. However, iodixanol was associated with a lower incidence of RCIN compared with ioxaglate and iohexol, but not when compared with other LOCM. In the most recent meta-analysis, which included 36 trials encompassing 7166 patients, From et al[65] compared iodixanol to several LOCMs. They found that iodixanol had no statistically significant reduction in RCIN incidence below that observed with heterogeneous comparator agents (P = 0.11). Analysis of patient subgroups has revealed that there was a significant benefit of iodixanol when compared with iohexol alone (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11-0.55, P < 0.001) but not when compared with iopamidol. These results suggest that the LOCM agents cannot be thought of as a class when it comes to renal tolerability, and that the potential benefit ascribed to IOCM has been overestimated based on earlier trials[36]. These studies suggest a lower incidence of RCIN with the use of iodixanol compared with specific low-osmolality agents, namely iohexol and possibly ioxaglate, with no discernible difference when iodixanol is compared with iopamidol. On the basis of these data, guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recommend the use of IOCM or LOCM other than iohexol and ioxaglate in patients with CKD undergoing angiography[44,67].
In summary, these data support a benefit of IOCM iodixanol compared to specific LOCM agents such as iohexol and ioxaglate among patients with CKD undergoing angiography, but not a benefit for iodixanol compared to other nonionic low osmolar agents. We suggest the use of either an iso-osmolal contrast agent or a low-molecular-weight contrast agent other than iohexol or ioxaglate.
Another important approach for prevention of RCIN is the early initiation of RRT during or after the administration of contrast. The use of RRT to prevent RCIN is predicated on the premise that rapid removal of iodinated radiocontrast material from the circulation, limiting the filtered load at the glomeruli, will decrease the risk of renal injury. Although contrast can be effectively eliminated by hemodialysis and hemofiltration[68,69], it is still controversial whether RRT is able to reduce the incidence of RCIN. Several RCTs have investigated this issue[69-79], but the results have been inconsistent.
In an effort to reconcile the disparate clinical trial findings, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to analyze the collective results of relevant studies[80,81]. Cruz et al[80] conducted a meta-analysis of blood purification therapies for the prevention of RCIN. Considering data from eight clinical trials, six of which assessed hemodialysis and two of which assessed continuous RRT, the authors found that RRT did not reduce the incidence of RCIN compared with routine preventive care. Moreover, there was considerable inter-trial heterogeneity. In sensitivity analyses that included only those studies of hemodialysis, inter-trial heterogeneity was not statistically significant, yet there was a trend toward greater risk for RCIN with hemodialysis compared with standard preventive care[80].
In a recently published meta-analysis, Song et al[81] compared the different modes of RRT in assessing the efficacy of prophylactic RRT on RCIN in 751 patients. They found considerable heterogeneity across trials (P < 0.00001). RRT reduced the risk of RCIN by 26% compared with the control group by saline infusion, but statistical significance was not reached (risk ratio, RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.35-1.60, P = 0.45). Subgroup analysis of modality indicated that hemodialysis was ineffective in reducing the risk of RCIN (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63-2.32, P = 0.57), while continuous RRT decreased the incidence of RCIN (RR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07-0.64, P = 0.006). They also analyzed the effects in the subgroups of baseline CKD stage 3 and higher. Interestingly, heterogeneity was not found in these subgroups. Patients in the studies of Marenzi et al[75,76] and Lee et al[77] represented a more severely ill population compared with other trials (CKD stage 4/5 vs stage 3). Subgroup analysis according to the CKD stage did not record heterogeneity across trials. When analysis was restricted to studies involving CKD stage 3 patients, they recorded a significant increase in relative risk of hemodialysis (RR: 1.53, P = 0.01). This finding indicated that hemodialysis was ineffective, or even harmful for prevention of RCIN in CKD stage 3 populations. However, analysis of trials with patients involving CKD stage 4/5 revealed an overwhelming favorable effect of RRT over standard treatment in reducing the incidence of RCIN (RR: 0.19, P < 0.001)[80]. Clinical trials comparing prophylactic RRT and control group for RCIN after coronary angiography procedure (baseline CKD stage 3) are shown in Table 2. Clinical trials comparing prophylactic RRT and control group for RCIN after coronary angiography procedure (baseline CKD stage > 3) are shown in Table 3.
| Ref. | Time from contrast exposure to the start of RRT (modes of RRT and duration) | No. of patients (RRT:control) | Incidence of RCIN results (RR, 95% CI) | Permanent dialysis rate of RCIN | In-hospital mortality of RCIN |
| Lehnert et al[70] (1998) diagnostic procedures | 63 ± 6 min (HD 3 h) | 30 (15:15) | 8/15 vs 6/15 (RR = 1.33, 0.61-2.91) | NA | NA |
| Sterner et al[72] (2000) diagnostic procedures | < 3 h (HD 3 h) | 32 (15:17) | 6/15 vs 4/17 (RR = 1.70, 0.59-4.90) | NA | NA |
| Berger et al[71] (2001) diagnostic procedures | 106 ± 25 min (HD 2–3 h) | 15 (7:8) | 3/7 vs 1/8 (RR = 3.43, 0.45-25.93) | NA | NA |
| Vogt et al[73] (2001) diagnostic procedures | 2 h (HD 3 h) | 113 (55:58) | 24/55 vs 20/58 (RR = 1.27, 0.80-2.01) | 3/55 vs 2/58 (RR = 1.58, 0.27-9.11) | 1/55 vs 1/58 (RR = 1.06, 0.06-17.30) |
| Frank et al[74] (2003) diagnostic procedures | 0 (HD 4 h) | 17 (7:10) | NA | 2/7 vs 2/10 (RR = 1.43, 0.26-7.86) | NA |
| Reinecke et al[78] (2007) diagnostic procedures | < 20 min (HD 4 h) | 273 (135:139) | 22/135 vs 10/138 (RR = 2.28, 1.12-4.64) | 2/135 vs 1/137 (RR = 2.03, 0.19-22.12) | 3/135 vs 3 137 (RR =1.02, 0.20-5.12) |
| Ref. | Time from contrast exposure to the start of RRT (modes of RRT and duration) | CKD stage, No. of patients (RRT:control) | Incidence of RCIN results (RR, 95% CI) | Permanent dialysis rate of RCIN | In-hospital mortality of RCIN |
| Marenzi et al[75] (2003) interventional procedures | 0 (CVVH 22-30 h) | Stage 4, 114 (58:56) | 4/58 vs 32/56 (RR = 0.12, 0.05-0.32) | 2/58 vs 11/56 (RR = 0.18, 0.04-0.76) | 1/58 vs 8/56 (RR = 0.11, 0.01-0.87) |
| Marenzi et al[76] (2006) diagnostic and interventional procedures | 0 (CVVH 18-36 h) | Stage 4, 92 (62: 30) | 9/62 vs 12/30 (RR = 0.36, 0.17-0.77) | NA | 3/62 vs 6/30 (RR = 0.20, 0.05-0.88) |
| Lee et al[77] (2007) diagnostic procedures | 81 ± 32 min (HD 4 h) | Stage 5, 82 (42:40) | 2/42 vs 18/40 (RR = 0.11, 0.03-0.43) | 0/42 vs 5/40 (RR = 0.09, 0-1.52) | No |
In summary, considering the greater cost and risk of RRT, temporary prophylactic hemodialysis or continuous RRT are not indicated for the prevention of contrast nephropathy in patients with stage 3 CKD. Although more data are needed in CKD, we consider the prophylactic use of hemodialysis in patients with stage 4/5 CKD when the functioning access is already available.
The mechanisms of pharmacological prophylaxis for CIN include antioxidant strategy, inhibition of renal vasoconstriction, and combination of these two effects. Currently, there are no approved pharmacological agents for the prevention of RCIN. Trials of pharmacological interventions, including furosemide, dopamine, fenoldopam, calcium channel blockers, and mannitol, have failed to demonstrate significant benefit for the prevention of RCIN and in some cases have been associated with harm[82-84]. Findings on the benefit of N-acetylcysteine (NAC), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), and statins are discussed below.
The rationale for the use of NAC for the prevention of RCIN relates to its capacity to scavenge reactive oxygen species, reduce the depletion of glutathione, and stimulate the production of vasodilatory mediators, including NO[18]. However, there has been ongoing debate over whether NAC is effective in preventing RCIN[18,29,36]. NAC is a potent antioxidant that scavenges a wide variety of oxygen-derived free radicals, and it may be capable of preventing RCIN by improving renal hemodynamics and by diminishing direct oxidative tissue damage.
The value of NAC for RCIN prevention has been the focus of many studies. The first study by Tepel et al[85] reported in 83 patients with CKD (serum creatinine > 1.2 mg/dL) undergoing applied computed tomography scanning with small amounts (75 mL) of LOCM. Administration of oral NAC at 600 mg twice daily on the day before and the day of the procedure (total dose: 2.4 g), in addition to an infusion of hypotonic saline, reduced the incidence of RCIN 10-fold[85]. Since the first publication of this initial study, many trials evaluating NAC for the prevention of RCIN have been performed and published in the literature but yielded highly conflicting results[85-100]. The clinical trials showing benefit of oral NAC for RCIN after angiography are shown in Table 4. Briguori et al[87] have concluded that the use of a double dose of NAC seems to be more protective in preventing contrast-induced renal dysfunction, especially in patients with high volumes of contrast medium. Similarly, in Marenzi’s study[93], a 2.6-fold lower incidence of RCIN was shown in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction who were treated with isotonic saline and 1.2 g IV bolus of NAC, followed by 1.2 g oral NAC after emergency coronary intervention compared with patients receiving 600 mg IV bolus of NAC before and 600 mg oral NAC after procedure. In contrast, the renoprotective effect of NAC was not supported by some other studies of orally administered NAC[94-100].
| Ref. | NAC dosing regimen (cumulated NAC dose) | No. of patients (NAC:control) | Hydration protocol | Contrast media type | Results |
| Shyu et al[88] (2002) coronary angiography | 400 mg po bid before and after the procedure (1.6 g) | 121 (60:61) | 0.45% saline for 12 h pre- and 12 h postprocedure | LOCM iopamidol | 3.3% vs 24.6% (P < 0.001) |
| Diaz-Sandoval[89] (2002) coronary angiography | 600 mg po bid× 2, 1 dose before and 3 dose after the procedure (2.4 g) | 54 (25:29) | 0.45% saline for 2-12 h pre-and 12 h postprocedure | LOCM ioxilan | 8.0% vs 45% (P = 0.005) |
| Kay et al[86] (2003) coronary angiography | 600 mg po bid× 2, before and after the procedure (2.4 g) | 200 (102:98) | 0.9% saline for 12 h pre- and 6 h postprocedure; | LOCM iopamidol | 3.9% vs 12.2% (P = 0.03) |
| MacNeill et al[90] (2003) coronary angiography | 600 mg twice daily × 5 doses (3 g) | 43 (21:22) | 0.45% saline at a rate of 1 ml/kg per hour for 12 h for in-patients and 2 mL/kg per hour for 4 h for daycare patient | LOCM iopromide | 5% vs 32% (P = 0.046) |
| Efrati et al[91] (2003) coronary angiography. | 1000 mg po bid× 2, before and after the procedure (4 g) | 49 (24:25) | 0.45% saline hydration 1 mL/kg per hour for 12 h before and 12 h after coronary angiography | LOCM iopromide | 0% vs 8% |
| Miner et al[92] (2004) coronary angiography | 2000 mg po either 2 or 3 (4 g or 6 g) | 180 (95:85) | 0.45% intravenous saline | LOCM iohexol | 9.6 % vs 22.2% (P = 0.04) |
| Briguori et al[87] (2004) cardiac/peripheral angiography | standard-dose 600 mg bid× 2 (2.4 g) | 224 (110:114) | 0.45% saline hydration 1 mL/kg per hour for 12 h before and 12 h after angiography | LOCM iobitridol | 11.0% vs 3.5% (P = 0.038) |
NAC for RCIN prevention is usually started the day before the procedure requiring contrast agent, thus, it is not possible in situations requiring urgent catheterization[101]. Therefore, IV NAC treatment is suggested as a possible alternative in situations where oral NAC is unable to be given in advance. Another reason is the controversial data obtained from orally administered NAC[102]. As in the studies with oral NAC, the results with IV NAC have also been inconsistent[102-110]. The clinical trials comparing IV NAC and control groups for RCIN after angiography are shown in Table 5.
| Ref. | NAC dosing regimen (cumulated NAC dose) | No. of patients (NAC:hydration) | Hydration protocol | Contrast media type (mean dose) | Results |
| Baker et al[103] (2003) coronary angiography | 150 mg/kg over 30 min before and 50 mg/kg over 4 h after (200 mg/kg) | 41:39 | 0.9% NaCl 1 mL/kg per hour for 12 h pre- and post-procedure | IOCM iodixanol (253 mL) | 5% vs 21% (RR = 0.28, P = 0.045) |
| Kefer et al[105] (2003) coronary angiography | 1200 mg 12 h before 1200 mg immediately after the procedure (2.4 g) | 53:51 | 0.9% NaCl 200 mL 12 h pre- and D5W 20 mL/h for 12 h pre and post-procedure | LOCM iopromide/iohexol (199 mL) | 3.8% vs 5.9 % (P = 0.98) |
| Rashid et al[107] (2004) peripheral angiography | 2 doses of 1000 mg at 6-12 h before and after the procedure (2 g) | 46:48 | 2 doses of 0.9% NaCl 500 mL over 4-6 h at 6-12 h before and after the procedure | LOCM iohexol 143 mL) | pts. CrCl < 70 mL/min 7.7% vs 8.8% (P = 1.0) |
| Webb et al[109] (2004) coronary angiography | 500 mg in D5W/0.9% NaCl 50 mL for 15 min as a bolus within 1 h before the procedure (500 mg) | 242:245 | D5W/0.9% NaCl 50 mL as a bolus within 1 h before the procedure and 200 mL 0.9% NaCl | LOCM ioversol (136 mL) | 23.3% vs 20.7% (P = 0.51) |
| Kotlyar et al[110] (2005) cardiac or peripheral angiography | Gr 1: 300 mg × 2 (600 mg) | 41:19 | 0.9% NaCl 1 mL/kg per hour | LOCM iopromide | 0% vs 0 % |
| Gr 2: 600 mg × 2 (1.2 g) | |||||
| Carbonell et al[104] (2007) coronary angiography | 600 mg twice daily (2.4 g) | 107:109 | 0.45% intravenous saline | LOCM iopromide (193 mL) | 10.3% vs 10.1% (P = 0.5) |
| Koc et al[102] (2010) coronary angiography and/or PCI | 600 mg twice daily before and on the day of the coronary procedure (total = 2.4 g) | 80:801:602 | 0.9% saline | LOCM iohexol 138 ± 47 mL) | 2.5% vs 16.3% vs 10.0% (P = 0.012) |
A variety of factors may contribute to these inconsistencies of efficacy of NAC to prevent contrast-induced AKI. These may include the definition of contrast-induced acute renal failure, baseline risk for acute renal failure (e.g., severity of renal dysfunction, heart failure, and proportion with diabetes), NAC dose and route of administration (e.g., oral or IV), IV hydration protocols, amount and type of contrast given, and type of procedure performed[21,111,112].
The disparate results of these clinical trials have led to a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing the overall prophylactic efficacy of NAC. To date, at least nine meta-analysis of NAC have shown beneficial treatment effects in reducing RCIN[113-121]. However, six meta-analyses were inconclusive[122-127]. In the largest meta-analysis that included 41 studies and encompassed 3393 patients, Kelly et al[118] found that oral or IV NAC significantly lowered the risk for RCIN by 38% when compared with hydration controls with saline alone (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.88). Trivedi et al[121] conducted a meta-analysis of 16 trials that utilized high-dose NAC, defined as a daily dose > 1.2 g or one dose of > 600 mg within 4 h of contrast administration with a sample size of 1677 patients. Their results suggested that high-dose NAC was associated with a lower risk of RCIN compared with controls.
In summary, clinical data regarding the efficacy with NAC for RCIN prevention remains debatable. However, considering the very low toxicity and cost of this drug we recommend the use of oral NAC at a dose of 1.2 g twice daily on the day before and day of the procedure to patients at risk for contrast nephropathy.
The rationale for the use of vitamin C for the prevention of RCIN relates to its antioxidant property; it has been shown to ameliorate renal damage in experimental postischemic stress, cisplatin, and aminoglycosides injury[128,129].
Spargias et al[130] conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ascorbic acid in 231 patients with serum creatine > 1.2 mg/dL who underwent coronary angiography and/or intervention. Ascorbic acid, 3 g at least 2 h before the procedure and 2 g in the night and the morning after the procedure, or placebo was administered orally. RCIN occurred in 11 of the 118 patients (9%) in the ascorbic acid group and in 23 of the 113 patients (20%) in the placebo group (OR: 0.38, P = 0.02). However, in another study by Boscheri et al[131], 143 consecutive patients with CKD (serum creatinine > 120 μmol/L) referred for coronary angiography intervention were randomly assigned to receive 1 g ascorbic acid or placebo in adjunct to saline hydration before and after angiography. They found there was no significant difference between the two groups (vitamin C 6.8%, placebo 4.3%, P < 0.05). No patient required dialysis. The authors concluded the prophylactic use of ascorbic acid in patients with renal dysfunction exposed to contrast dye is not justified. In the most recent randomized, double blinded, placebo-controlled, single-center study by Brueck et al[132], the prophylactic administration of the antioxidants NAC or ascorbic acid, along with prehydration, was not associated with a significantly reduced risk of RCIN compared with placebo in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Thus, the role of ascorbic acid for RCIN prevention remains unclear.
The rationale for the use of statins for the prevention of RCIN relates to its antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties. Given the potential role of oxidative stress in the pathophysiology of RCIN, statins might reduce contrast media nephrotoxicity by removing free radicals[133-135].
The possibility that statins might be beneficial in reducing the incidence of contrast-induced acute renal failure has been examined in several observational studies[136-138] and RCTs[139-142]. The earliest study by Attallah et al[130] reviewed a database of 1002 patients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography. Incidence of RCIN in patients receiving simvastatin or atorvastatin 24-72 h before catheterization was significantly lower than in those not receiving it. Khanal et al[137] similarly reported a significantly lower incidence of RCIN, based on a large database review of 29 409 patients undergoing emergency and non-emergency PCI, among patients receiving statins. Patti et al[138] prospectively evaluated 434 patients undergoing PCI to determine statin benefit in prevention of RCIN and long-term outcomes over 4 years. Statin-pretreated patients had a significantly lower incidence of RCIN and improved long-term outcomes including a significant decrease in cardiac death at 4 years. However, in the first prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study (PROMISS trial) to evaluate the use of a statin for RCIN prevention, short-term simvastatin pretreatment at high dose did not prevent renal function deterioration after administration of contrast medium in patients with baseline renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography[139]. Zhang et al[143] performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published human cohort studies and RCTs to determine whether the administration of statins is protective against RCIN and to assess the magnitude of their effect on RCIN. In this most recently published systemic review, the investigators performed qualitative analysis of the cohort studies and quantitative analysis of the RCTs to estimate the pooled RRs for preventive effect of statins. Among six cohort studies, four showed chronic statin pretreatment had a preventive effect against RCIN. From six RCTs, 1194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Under the fixed-effects model, an insignificant protective trend toward decreased incidence of RCIN with periprocedural short-term high-dose statin treatment was seen (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.48-1.02). Current data are not conclusive as to whether statins are protective for RCIN due to the inherent limitations of the included studies[144]. In the future, large well-designed studies are needed to address the effect of this drug and its longer-term clinical outcomes.
The rationale for the prevention of RCIN by periprocedural hydration is through blocking its two complementary pathophysiological processes[144]. First, expansion of the intravascular space is thought to blunt the vasoconstrictive effect of contrast on the renal medulla. Second, intravascular fluids are believed to attenuate the direct toxic effect of contrast agents on tubular epithelial cells. The optimal hydration solution to prevent contrast nephropathy is unclear.
The optimal method and composition of the fluid administered remains to be established. To date, there are four types of periprocedural hydration: oral fluids, IV 0.45% saline, IV normal saline, and IV sodium bicarbonate. The positive effect of adequate periprocedural hydration in reducing rates of RCIN was first established in a randomized study by Solomon et al[83] in 1994. In that study, 78 patients with stable chronic renal failure (mean serum creatinine concentration 2.1 mg/dL) about to undergo coronary angiography were randomized to one of three regimens: (1) 0.45% (half-isotonic) saline at a rate of 1 mL/kg per hour for 12 h before and 12 h after the angiogram; (2) 0.45% saline plus 25 g of mannitol infused intravenously during the 1 h before the procedure; and (3) 0.45% saline plus 80 mg furosemide infused intravenously during the 30 min before angiography. The incidence of acute renal failure (defined as an increase in serum creatinine of at least 0.5 mg/dL) was lowest in the group treated with saline alone. However, this trial did not include a control group of patients who did not receive IV fluid. In another randomized study by Trivedi et al[145] who demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of RCIN in patients undergoing non-emergency coronary angiography who received IV normal saline (1 mL/kg per hour for 24 h starting 12 h before contrast exposure) compared with a protocol of unrestricted oral fluids (3.7% vs 34.6%, P < 0.005). Trivedi’s study showed IV normal saline was better than unrestricted oral fluids. The randomized comparison of two hydration regimens in a total of 1620 patients undergoing PCI in a study by Mueller et al[146] showed the superiority of isotonic vs half-isotonic saline in reducing RCIN (0.7% vs 2%, respectively). Mueller’s study showed the effect of tonicity of IV fluids on the development of RCIN. On the basis of this study, it has generally been accepted that isotonic saline is superior to hypotonic saline for the prevention of RCIN.
One major underlying hypothesis for application of sodium bicarbonate is that the alkalinization of tubular fluid diminishes the production of free oxygen radicals and protects the kidney from oxidant injury[39,147]. Pretreatment with sodium bicarbonate is more protective than sodium chloride in animal models of acute ischemic renal failure[148]. Based on the above theory, the first study of sodium bicarbonate for RCIN prevention by Merten et al[149] was done in 2004. This study involved 119 patients with stable serum creatinine levels (≥ 1.1 mg/dL) scheduled for contrast administration (coronary angiography, computed tomography, or radiographic procedures) and randomized to receive 3 mL/kg per hour 5% dextrose with 154 mEq/L
sodium chloride or 5% dextrose with 154 mEq/L bicarbonate for 1 h before contrast administration, followed by an infusion at 1 mL/kg per hour for 6 h after contrast administration. The incidence of RCIN was 1.7% in patients receiving bicarbonate, compared with 13.6% (P = 0.02) in patients receiving saline[149].
Since the first publication of this initial study by Merten et al[149], many trials evaluating IV sodium bicarbonate for the prevention of RCIN have been performed and published in the literature, but yielded highly conflicting results[53,150-158]. Over the past 8 years, at least 12 clinical trials comparing the development of RCIN following the administration of either isotonic bicarbonate or isotonic saline have been published in the peer-reviewed literature; eight demonstrating a lower incidence of RCIN with bicarbonate administration[108,149-155], and four showing no significant benefit[53,156-158]. The clinical trials showing benefit of bicarbonate over saline for RCIN are shown in Table 6.
| Ref. | Inclusion criteria | No. of patients | Hydration protocol | Contrast media type | Results: RCIN in bicarbonate group vs saline group | Dialysis and death rate |
| Merten et al[149] (2004) CT/coronary angiography | SCr ≥ 1.1 mg/dL | 119 | 0.9% NaCl 1 mL/kg per hour for 12 h pre- and post-procedure | Iopamidol | 1.7% vs 13.6% (P = 0.02) | Dialysis rate 0% |
| Ozcan et al[152] (2007) coronary angiography/PCI | SCr > 1.2 mg/dL | 264 | 0.9% NaCl 200 mL 12 h pre- and D5W 20 mL/h for 12 h pre and post-procedure | Ioxaglate | 4.5% vs 13.6% (P = 0.036) | Dialysis rate 1% |
| Briguori et al[150] (2007) coronary/peripheral angiography | SCr ≥ 2.0 mg/dL or eGFR < 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2 | 326 | 0.9% NaCl 500 mL over 4-6 h at 6-12 h before and after the procedure | Iodixanol | 1.9% vs 9.9% (P = 0.019) | Dialysis rate 1% |
| Masuda et al[151] (2007) emergency coronary angiography/PCI | SCr ≥ 1.1 mg/dL or eGFR < 60 mL/min | 59 | D5W/0.9% NaCl 50 mL as a bolus within 1 h before the procedure and 200 mL 0.9% NaCl | Iopamidol | 6.7% vs 34.5% (P = 0.01) | Dialysis rate 7%; death rate 3% |
| Recio-Mayoral et al[108] (2007) emergency PCI | None | 111 | Sodium bicarbonate 5 mL/kg per hour 1 h before the procedure and 1.5 mL/kg per hour for 12 h after the procedure | Iomeprol | 1.8% vs 21.8% (P < 0.001) | Dialysis rate 4%; death rate 4.5% |
| Pakfetrat et al[153] (2009) coronary angiography/PCI | SCr > 1.2 mg/dL | 192 | Bicarbonate in dextrose infusion, normal saline infusion alone or combined with oral acetazolamide before procedure | Iodixanol | 4.2% vs 12.5% (P < 0.001) | NA |
| Tamura et al[154] (2009) elective coronary angiography | SCr > 1.1 to < 2.0 mg/dL) undergoing an elective coronary | 144 | Single-bolus intravenous administration of sodium bicarbonate (20 mEq) immediately before contrast exposure | Iopamidol | 10.3% vs 10.1% (P = 0.5) | NA |
| Ueda et al[155] (2011) emergent coronary procedures | SCr > 1.2 mg/dL | 59 | A bolus intravenous injection of 154 mEq/L of sodium bicarbonate or saline at the dose of 0.5 mL/kg, before CM, followed by infusion of 154 mEq/L sodium bicarbonate at 1 mL/kg per hour for 6 h in both groups | Iopamidol | 3.3% vs 27.6% (P = 0.01) | NA |
In the most recently published study by Ueda et al[155], 59 patients with mild CKD were scheduled at admission to undergo an emergency coronary procedure. The patients were randomized to receive a bolus IV injection of 154 mEq/L sodium bicarbonate (n = 30) or sodium chloride (n = 29) at a dose of 0.5 mL/kg, before contrast administration, followed by infusion of 154 mEq/L sodium bicarbonate at 1 mL/kg per hour for 6 h in both groups. In the sodium bicarbonate group, the serum creatinine concentration remained unchanged within 2 d of contrast administration (from 1.32 ± 0.46 to 1.38 ± 0.60 mg/dL, P = 0.33). In contrast, it increased in the sodium chloride group (1.51 ± 0.59 to 1.91 ± 1.19 mg/dL, P = 0.006). The incidence of RCIN was significantly lower in the sodium bicarbonate group than in the sodium chloride group (3.3% vs 27.6%, P = 0.01).
In contrast to the above findings, several recently published studies have shown no significant benefit of isotonic bicarbonate over saline for lowering incidence of RCIN[53,156-158]. In the largest randomized trial to date by Maioli et al[157], comparing isotonic saline (1 mL/kg per hour, started 12 h before and extended 12 h after the procedure) against isotonic sodium bicarbonate in dextrose (3 mL/kg per hour for 1 h before, followed by 1 mL/kg per hour for 6 h after contrast administration) given in addition to NAC in 502 CKD patients (eGFR < 60 mL/min) scheduled for non-emergency coronary angiography, there was no superiority of either treatment modality[157]. In addition, in a large retrospective analysis of the general population of patients undergoing coronary angiography, use of sodium bicarbonate alone was associated with an increased risk of contrast nephropathy compared with no treatment; whereas NAC alone or in combination with sodium bicarbonate was not associated with any significant difference in the incidence of contrast nephropathy[159].
The optimal hydration solution to prevent contrast nephropathy is unclear and the disparate results of these clinical trials, therefore, many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to analyze these collective results[160-171]. Of the 12 published meta-analyses, most have suggested a significant benefit of using sodium-bicarbonate-based hydration for prophylaxis of RCIN[160-169], although the magnitude of the benefit may have been overestimated by earlier studies. Two meta-analyses have shown no significant benefit[170,171]. Meta-analyses comparing the effectiveness of bicarbonate and saline to prevent RCIN are shown in Table 7.
| Ref. | Year of publication | No. of patients | No. of trials | Relative risk (95% CI) of RCIN of bicarbonate therapy compared with saline | Study heterogeneity and publication bias |
| Joannidis et al[160] | 2008 | 2043 | 9 | 0.45 (0.26-0.79) | Heterogeneity detectable and publication bias was present |
| Hogan et al[161] | 2008 | 1307 | 7 | 0.37 (0.18-0.714) | Evidence of heterogeneity |
| Ho et al[162] | 2008 | 573 | 4 | 0.22 (0.11-0.44) | Significant heterogeneity |
| Meier et al[163] | 2009 | 2633 | 17 | 0.52 (0.34-0.80) | Evidence of heterogeneity and publication bias |
| Navaneethan et al[166] | 2009 | 1854 | 12 | 0.46 (0.26-0.82) | Heterogeneity and publication bias were detectable |
| Kanbay et al[165] | 2009 | 2448 | 17 | 0.54 (0.36-0.83) | There are study heterogeneity and publication biases |
| Zoungas et al[168] | 2009 | 3563 | 23 | 0.62 (0.45-0.86) | Evidence of heterogeneity and publication bias was present |
| Hoste et al[167] | 2010 | 3055 | 18 | 0.66 (0.45-0.95) | Evidence of heterogeneity and publication bias was present |
| Trivedi et al[171] | 2010 | 1090 | 10 | 0.57 (0.38-0.85) | No evidence of heterogeneity and no publication bias |
| Kunadian et al[170] | 2011 | 1734 | 7 | 0.33 (0.16-0.69) | Heterogeneity and publication bias were detectable |
| Brown et al[164] | 2009 | 1994 | 10 | 0.65 (0.40-1.05) | Significant heterogeneity |
| Brar et al[169] | 2009 | 2290 (large trials, 1145; small trials, 1145) | 14 (large trials 3; small trials 11) | large trials: 0.85 (0.63-1.16); small trials: 0.50 (0.27-0.93) | Evidence of publication bias; heterogeneity accounted for by trial size |
Hoste et al[167] completed a comprehensive meta-analysis including 18 trials with a total of 3055 patients. The aggregate result demonstrated a benefit favoring sodium bicarbonate (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.95,). This effect was most prominent in coronary procedures and in patients with CKD. In their subgroup analysis of nine published papers and nine unpublished abstracts, they found published papers demonstrated a beneficial effect, while abstracts did not. They also detected significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies.
In another recent meta-analysis of 14 trials, encompassing 2290 patients, Brar et al[169] also found significant heterogeneity among the trials (P heterogeneity = 0.02, I2 = 47.8%), and they found the heterogeneity was largely accounted for by trial size (P = 0.016). Therefore, the authors segregated the trials into two groups. Three trials were categorized as large (n > 1145) and 11 as small (n < 1145). Among the large trials, the incidence of RCIN for sodium bicarbonate and sodium chloride was 10.7 and 12.5%, respectively; the RR and 95% CI was 0.85 and 0.63-1.16, without evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.89, I2 = 0%). However, the pooled RR among the 11 small trials was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.27-0.93) with significant between-trial heterogeneity (P = 0.01, I2 = 56%) and the small trials were more likely to be of lower methodological quality. As a result, the authors concluded there was no evidence of benefit for hydration with sodium bicarbonate compared with sodium chloride for the prevention of RCIN. The benefit of sodium bicarbonate was limited to small trials of lower methodological quality.
In summary, at this time, data on the comparative effectiveness of bicarbonate and saline for the prevention of RCIN are insufficient to warrant a recommendation for the routine use of a specific isotonic IV fluid. However, in the clinical setting when patients requiring emergency coronary procedures, there would not be enough time to administer sufficient IV fluids for hydration. The idea of a single bolus of sodium bicarbonate may be helpful.
RCIN is a predictable and perhaps partially preventable complication. Reasonable steps should be taken to minimize risk. Novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are needed to manage the ever-increasing numbers of patients with baseline renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography. Clinicians should carefully evaluate the risks and benefits of prophylactic measures and apply them to individual patients. Large clinical trials that are based on clinically plausible effect sizes and examine serious, adverse, patient-centered outcomes are needed to define better the clinical utility of pharmaceutical agents for the prevention of this complication. Our current recommendations can be summarized as follows: (1) all patients should be stratified for RCIN risk prior to contrast exposure; (2) temporary withdrawal of the drugs which may affect the renal function; (3) dose of contrast medium should be limited to the minimum volume required to provide adequate clinical information; (4) high-risk patients should receive prophylaxis for modifiable factors; (5) consider using iso-osmolar or a nonionic, LOCM other than iohexol or ioxaglate; (6) unless contraindicated, consider using oral high-dose NAC at 1.2 g bid on the day before and the day of contrast exposure; (7) using periprocedural hydration, if no evidence of frank heart failure, either by isotonic saline at a dose of 1 mL/kg per hour for 12 h preceding and 12 h following the administration of contrast medium, or 154 mEq/L bicarbonate at a dose of 3.0 mL/kg for 1 h preceding and 1 mL/kg per hour for 6 h after contrast administration; (8) in an emergency setting, where preparation of the patient with IV hydration is not feasible, consider administration of isotonic sodium bicarbonate with high-dose oral NAC (2.4 g) 1 h before contrast; (9) consider the prophylactic use of hemodialysis in patients with stage 5 CKD, provided that a functioning access is already available; and (10) follow-up the serum creatinine 24-72 h after contrast exposure in high-risk patients.
Peer reviewers: Zhonghua Sun, Professor, Medical Imaging, Curtin University of Technology, Kent Street, Perth 6102, Australia; Dr. Thomas Hellmut Schindler, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Internal Medecine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 4, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
S- Editor Cheng JX L- Editor A E- Editor Zheng XM
| 1. | Katzberg RW, Haller C. Contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: clinical landscape. Kidney Int Suppl. 2006;S3-S7. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 141] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 124] [Article Influence: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (1)] |
| 2. | Taliercio CP, Vlietstra RE, Fisher LD, Burnett JC. Risks for renal dysfunction with cardiac angiography. Ann Intern Med. 1986;104:501-504. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 3. | Manske CL, Sprafka JM, Strony JT, Wang Y. Contrast nephropathy in azotemic diabetic patients undergoing coronary angiography. Am J Med. 1990;89:615-620. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 352] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 314] [Article Influence: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 4. | Rich MW, Crecelius CA. Incidence, risk factors, and clinical course of acute renal insufficiency after cardiac catheterization in patients 70 years of age or older. A prospective study. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:1237-1242. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 217] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 180] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 5. | Weisberg LS, Kurnik PB, Kurnik BR. Risk of radiocontrast nephropathy in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Kidney Int. 1994;45:259-265. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 269] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 274] [Article Influence: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 6. | McCullough PA, Wolyn R, Rocher LL, Levin RN, O'Neill WW. Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. Am J Med. 1997;103:368-375. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1214] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1146] [Article Influence: 42.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 7. | Hou SH, Bushinsky DA, Wish JB, Cohen JJ, Harrington JT. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency: a prospective study. Am J Med. 1983;74:243-248. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 869] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 762] [Article Influence: 18.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 8. | Cigarroa RG, Lange RA, Williams RH, Hillis LD. Dosing of contrast material to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with renal disease. Am J Med. 1989;86:649-652. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 394] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 416] [Article Influence: 11.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 9. | Subramanian S, Tumlin J, Bapat B, Zyczynski T. Economic burden of contrast-induced nephropathy: implications for prevention strategies. J Med Econ. 2007;10:119-134. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 78] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 76] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 10. | Solomon RJ, Mehran R, Natarajan MK, Doucet S, Katholi RE, Staniloae CS, Sharma SK, Labinaz M, Gelormini JL, Barrett BJ. Contrast-induced nephropathy and long-term adverse events: cause and effect? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:1162-1169. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 199] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 213] [Article Influence: 14.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 11. | Goldenberg I, Chonchol M, Guetta V. Reversible acute kidney injury following contrast exposure and the risk of long-term mortality. Am J Nephrol. 2009;29:136-144. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 70] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 74] [Article Influence: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 12. | Bartholomew BA, Harjai KJ, Dukkipati S, Boura JA, Yerkey MW, Glazier S, Grines CL, O'Neill WW. Impact of nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention and a method for risk stratification. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:1515-1519. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 339] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 349] [Article Influence: 17.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 13. | Gruberg L, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Gangas G, Lansky AJ, Kent KM, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Leon MB. The prognostic implications of further renal function deterioration within 48 h of interventional coronary procedures in patients with pre-existent chronic renal insufficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1542-1548. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 535] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 501] [Article Influence: 20.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 14. | James MT, Ghali WA, Tonelli M, Faris P, Knudtson ML, Pannu N, Klarenbach SW, Manns BJ, Hemmelgarn BR. Acute kidney injury following coronary angiography is associated with a long-term decline in kidney function. Kidney Int. 2010;78:803-809. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 159] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 166] [Article Influence: 11.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 15. | McCullough PA, Sandberg KR. Epidemiology of contrast-induced nephropathy. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2003;4 Suppl 5:S3-S9. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 16. | Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, Berger PB, Ting HH, Best PJ, Singh M, Bell MR, Barsness GW, Mathew V. Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2002;105:2259-2264. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1212] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1182] [Article Influence: 53.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 17. | Cowper SE. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: an overview. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5:23-28. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 49] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 54] [Article Influence: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 18. | Weisbord SD, Palevsky PM. Strategies for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2010;19:539-549. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 42] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 46] [Article Influence: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 19. | Tepel M, Aspelin P, Lameire N. Contrast-induced nephropathy: a clinical and evidence-based approach. Circulation. 2006;113:1799-1806. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 304] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 319] [Article Influence: 17.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 20. | Goldenberg I, Matetzky S. Nephropathy induced by contrast media: pathogenesis, risk factors and preventive strategies. CMAJ. 2005;172:1461-1471. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 226] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 236] [Article Influence: 12.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 21. | Fishbane S, Durham JH, Marzo K, Rudnick M. N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:251-260. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 140] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 127] [Article Influence: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 22. | Gleeson TG, Bulugahapitiya S. Contrast-induced nephropathy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1673-1689. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 23. | Maeder M, Klein M, Fehr T, Rickli H. Contrast nephropathy: review focusing on prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1763-1771. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 163] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 150] [Article Influence: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 24. | Murphy SW, Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Contrast nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11:177-182. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 25. | Solomon R. Preventing contrast-induced nephropathy: problems, challenges and future directions. BMC Med. 2009;7:24. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 20] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 26. | Heyman SN, Rosen S, Khamaisi M, Idée JM, Rosenberger C. Reactive oxygen species and the pathogenesis of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:188-195. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 204] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 218] [Article Influence: 15.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 27. | Tumlin J, Stacul F, Adam A, Becker CR, Davidson C, Lameire N, McCullough PA. Pathophysiology of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:14K-20K. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 253] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 272] [Article Influence: 15.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 28. | McCullough PA, Adam A, Becker CR, Davidson C, Lameire N, Stacul F, Tumlin J. Risk prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:27K-36K. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 285] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 279] [Article Influence: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 29. | Kagan A, Sheikh-Hamad D. Contrast-induced kidney injury: focus on modifiable risk factors and prophylactic strategies. Clin Cardiol. 2010;33:62-66. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 41] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 30. | Brown JR, Robb JF, Block CA, Schoolwerth AC, Kaplan AV, O'Connor GT, Solomon RJ, Malenka DJ. Does safe dosing of iodinated contrast prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:346-350. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 106] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 114] [Article Influence: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 31. | Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Campodonico J, Lauri G, Marana I, De Metrio M, Moltrasio M, Grazi M, Rubino M, Veglia F. Contrast volume during primary percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent contrast-induced nephropathy and mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:170-177. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 32. | Reed M, Meier P, Tamhane UU, Welch KB, Moscucci M, Gurm HS. The relative renal safety of iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:645-654. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 154] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 149] [Article Influence: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 33. | Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E, Lasic Z, Iakovou I, Fahy M, Mintz GS, Lansky AJ, Moses JW, Stone GW. A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1393-1399. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 34. | Brown JR, DeVries JT, Piper WD, Robb JF, Hearne MJ, Ver Lee PM, Kellet MA, Watkins MW, Ryan TJ, Silver MT. Serious renal dysfunction after percutaneous coronary interventions can be predicted. Am Heart J. 2008;155:260-266. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 102] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 98] [Article Influence: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 35. | Brown JR, Thompson CA. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury: the at-risk patient and protective measures. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2010;12:440-445. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 36. | Caixeta A, Mehran R. Evidence-based management of patients undergoing PCI: contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75 Suppl 1:S15-S20. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 36] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 38] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 37. | Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Clinical practice. Preventing nephropathy induced by contrast medium. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:379-386. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 433] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 381] [Article Influence: 21.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 38. | Klein LW, Sheldon MW, Brinker J, Mixon TA, Skelding K, Strunk AO, Tommaso CL, Weiner B, Bailey SR, Uretsky B. The use of radiographic contrast media during PCI: a focused review: a position statement of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74:728-746. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 39. | Russo D, Minutolo R, Cianciaruso B, Memoli B, Conte G, De Nicola L. Early effects of contrast media on renal hemodynamics and tubular function in chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1995;6:1451-1458. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 40. | Kane GC, Doyle BJ, Lerman A, Barsness GW, Best PJ, Rihal CS. Ultra-low contrast volumes reduce rates of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:89-90. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 98] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 99] [Article Influence: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 41. | Liu Y, Tan N, Zhou YL, He PC, Luo JF, Chen JY. The contrast medium volume to estimated glomerular filtration rate ratio as a predictor of contrast-induced nephropathy after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44:221-229. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 42. | Freeman RV, O'Donnell M, Share D, Meengs WL, Kline-Rogers E, Clark VL, DeFranco AC, Eagle KA, McGinnity JG, Patel K. Nephropathy requiring dialysis after percutaneous coronary intervention and the critical role of an adjusted contrast dose. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:1068-1073. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 243] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 237] [Article Influence: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 43. | Laskey WK, Jenkins C, Selzer F, Marroquin OC, Wilensky RL, Glaser R, Cohen HA, Holmes DR. Volume-to-creatinine clearance ratio: a pharmacokinetically based risk factor for prediction of early creatinine increase after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:584-590. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 268] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 282] [Article Influence: 16.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 44. | Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:461-470. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 45. | McCullough PA. Radiocontrast-induced acute kidney injury. Nephron Physiol. 2008;109:p61-p72. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 69] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 74] [Article Influence: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 46. | Barrett BJ, Carlisle EJ. Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high- and low-osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology. 1993;188:171-178. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 47. | Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L, Ludbrook PA, Murphy MJ, Halpern EF, Hill JA, Winniford M, Cohen MB, VanFossen DB. Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. The Iohexol Cooperative Study. Kidney Int. 1995;47:254-261. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 637] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 578] [Article Influence: 19.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 48. | Chalmers N, Jackson RW. Comparison of iodixanol and iohexol in renal impairment. Br J Radiol. 1999;72:701-703. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 49. | Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson SG, Strasser R, Willenbrock R, Berg KJ. Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:491-499. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 802] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 682] [Article Influence: 32.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 50. | Jo SH, Youn TJ, Koo BK, Park JS, Kang HJ, Cho YS, Chung WY, Joo GW, Chae IH, Choi DJ. Renal toxicity evaluation and comparison between visipaque (iodixanol) and hexabrix (ioxaglate) in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography: the RECOVER study: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:924-930. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 201] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 210] [Article Influence: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 51. | Nie B, Cheng WJ, Li YF, Cao Z, Yang Q, Zhao YX, Guo YH, Zhou YJ. A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial on the efficacy and cardiorenal safety of iodixanol vs. iopromide in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72:958-965. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 42] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 46] [Article Influence: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 52. | Hernandez F, Mora L, Suberviola V, Martin R, Gomez I, Garcia Tejada J, Velazquez M, Albarran A, Andreu J, Tascon J. Comparison of iodixanol versus ioversol for prevention of contrast induced nephropathy in diabetic patients undergoing coronary angiography or intervention. Eur Heart J. 2007;28 Suppl:454. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 53. | Adolph E, Holdt-Lehmann B, Chatterjee T, Paschka S, Prott A, Schneider H, Koerber T, Ince H, Steiner M, Schuff-Werner P. Renal Insufficiency Following Radiocontrast Exposure Trial (REINFORCE): a randomized comparison of sodium bicarbonate versus sodium chloride hydration for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. Coron Artery Dis. 2008;19:413-419. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 54. | Nguyen SA, Suranyi P, Ravenel JG, Randall PK, Romano PB, Strom KA, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. Iso-osmolality versus low-osmolality iodinated contrast medium at intravenous contrast-enhanced CT: effect on kidney function. Radiology. 2008;248:97-105. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 98] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 102] [Article Influence: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 55. | Barrett BJ, Katzberg RW, Thomsen HS, Chen N, Sahani D, Soulez G, Heiken JP, Lepanto L, Ni ZH, Ni ZH. Contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing computed tomography: a double-blind comparison of iodixanol and iopamidol. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:815-821. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 160] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 143] [Article Influence: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 56. | Rudnick MR, Davidson C, Laskey W, Stafford JL, Sherwin PF. Nephrotoxicity of iodixanol versus ioversol in patients with chronic kidney disease: the Visipaque Angiography/Interventions with Laboratory Outcomes in Renal Insufficiency (VALOR) Trial. Am Heart J. 2008;156:776-782. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 81] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 86] [Article Influence: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 57. | Wessely R, Koppara T, Bradaric C, Vorpahl M, Braun S, Schulz S, Mehilli J, Schömig A, Kastrati A. Choice of contrast medium in patients with impaired renal function undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:430-437. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 33] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 37] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 58. | Chuang FR, Chen TC, Wang IK, Chuang CH, Chang HW, Ting-Yu Chiou T, Cheng YF, Lee WC, Chen WC, Yang KD. Comparison of iodixanol and iohexol in patients undergoing intravenous pyelography: a prospective controlled study. Ren Fail. 2009;31:181-188. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 17] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16] [Article Influence: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 59. | Mehran R, Nikolsky E, Kirtane AJ, Caixeta A, Wong SC, Teirstein PS, Downey WE, Batchelor WB, Casterella PJ, Kim YH. Ionic low-osmolar versus nonionic iso-osmolar contrast media to obviate worsening nephropathy after angioplasty in chronic renal failure patients: the ICON (Ionic versus non-ionic Contrast to Obviate worsening Nephropathy after angioplasty in chronic renal failure patients) study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:415-421. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 60. | Laskey W, Aspelin P, Davidson C, Rudnick M, Aubry P, Kumar S, Gietzen F, Wiemer M. Nephrotoxicity of iodixanol versus iopamidol in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus undergoing coronary angiographic procedures. Am Heart J. 2009;158:822-828.e3. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 60] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53] [Article Influence: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 61. | Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Erley CM, Grazioli L, Bonomo L, Ni Z, Romano L. The ACTIVE Trial: comparison of the effects on renal function of iomeprol-400 and iodixanol-320 in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing abdominal computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:170-178. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 111] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 119] [Article Influence: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 62. | McCullough PA, Bertrand ME, Brinker JA, Stacul F. A meta-analysis of the renal safety of isosmolar iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:692-699. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 243] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 253] [Article Influence: 14.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 63. | Solomon R. The role of osmolality in the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review of angiographic contrast media in high risk patients. Kidney Int. 2005;68:2256-2263. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 147] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 153] [Article Influence: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 64. | Heinrich MC, Häberle L, Müller V, Bautz W, Uder M. Nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolar iodixanol compared with nonionic low-osmolar contrast media: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiology. 2009;250:68-86. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 230] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 239] [Article Influence: 15.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 65. | From AM, Al Badarin FJ, McDonald FS, Bartholmai BJ, Cha SS, Rihal CS. Iodixanol versus low-osmolar contrast media for prevention of contrast induced nephropathy: meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:351-358. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 66] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 74] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 66. | Detrenis S, Meschi M, Savazzi G. Contrast nephropathy: isosmolar and low-osmolar contrast media. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:922; author reply 922-923. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 67. | Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC, King SB, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Bailey SR, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Casey DE. 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update) a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:2205-2241. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 958] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 811] [Article Influence: 57.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 68. | Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA. Dialysis and contrast media. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:3026-3030. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 69. | Marenzi G, Bartorelli AL, Lauri G, Assanelli E, Grazi M, Campodonico J, Marana I. Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration for the treatment of contrast-induced acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;58:59-64. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 70. | Lehnert T, Keller E, Gondolf K, Schäffner T, Pavenstädt H, Schollmeyer P. Effect of haemodialysis after contrast medium administration in patients with renal insufficiency. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1998;13:358-362. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 71. | Berger E, Bader B, Bosker J, Risler T, Erley CM. Contrast media-induced kidney failure cannot be prevented by hemodialysis (in German). Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2001;26:162-166. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 72. | Sterner G, Frennby B, Kurkus J, Nyman U. Does post-angiographic hemodialysis reduce the risk of contrast-medium nephropathy? Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2000;34:323-326. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 53] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 56] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 73. | Vogt B, Ferrari P, Schönholzer C, Marti HP, Mohaupt M, Wiederkehr M, Cereghetti C, Serra A, Huynh-Do U, Uehlinger D. Prophylactic hemodialysis after radiocontrast media in patients with renal insufficiency is potentially harmful. Am J Med. 2001;111:692-698. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 197] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 208] [Article Influence: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 74. | Frank H, Werner D, Lorusso V, Klinghammer L, Daniel WG, Kunzendorf U, Ludwig J. Simultaneous hemodialysis during coronary angiography fails to prevent radiocontrast-induced nephropathy in chronic renal failure. Clin Nephrol. 2003;60:176-182. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 75. | Marenzi G, Marana I, Lauri G, Assanelli E, Grazi M, Campodonico J, Trabattoni D, Fabbiocchi F, Montorsi P, Bartorelli AL. The prevention of radiocontrast-agent-induced nephropathy by hemofiltration. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1333-1340. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 364] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 384] [Article Influence: 18.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 76. | Marenzi G, Lauri G, Campodonico J, Marana I, Assanelli E, De Metrio M, Grazi M, Veglia F, Fabbiocchi F, Montorsi P. Comparison of two hemofiltration protocols for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in high-risk patients. Am J Med. 2006;119:155-162. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 138] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 141] [Article Influence: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 77. | Lee PT, Chou KJ, Liu CP, Mar GY, Chen CL, Hsu CY, Fang HC, Chung HM. Renal protection for coronary angiography in advanced renal failure patients by prophylactic hemodialysis. A randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1015-1020. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 73] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 78] [Article Influence: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 78. | Reinecke H, Fobker M, Wellmann J, Becke B, Fleiter J, Heitmeyer C, Breithardt G, Hense HW, Schaefer RM. A randomized controlled trial comparing hydration therapy to additional hemodialysis or N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy: the Dialysis-versus-Diuresis (DVD) Trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2007;96:130-139. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 64] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 52] [Article Influence: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 79. | Hölscher B, Heitmeyer C, Fobker M, Breithardt G, Schaefer RM, Reinecke H. Predictors for contrast media-induced nephropathy and long-term survival: prospectively assessed data from the randomized controlled Dialysis-Versus-Diuresis (DVD) trial. Can J Cardiol. 2008;24:845-850. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 36] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 37] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 80. | Cruz DN, Perazella MA, Bellomo R, Corradi V, de Cal M, Kuang D, Ocampo C, Nalesso F, Ronco C. Extracorporeal blood purification therapies for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48:361-371. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 77] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 79] [Article Influence: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 81. | Song K, Jiang S, Shi Y, Shen H, Shi X, Jing D. Renal replacement therapy for prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Nephrol. 2010;32:497-504. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 82. | Cacoub P, Deray G, Baumelou A, Jacobs C. No evidence for protective effects of nifedipine against radiocontrast-induced acute renal failure. Clin Nephrol. 1988;29:215-216. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 83. | Solomon R, Werner C, Mann D, D'Elia J, Silva P. Effects of saline, mannitol, and furosemide to prevent acute decreases in renal function induced by radiocontrast agents. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1416-1420. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 909] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 759] [Article Influence: 25.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 84. | Stone GW, McCullough PA, Tumlin JA, Lepor NE, Madyoon H, Murray P, Wang A, Chu AA, Schaer GL, Stevens M. Fenoldopam mesylate for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2284-2291. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 324] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 337] [Article Influence: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 85. | Tepel M, van der Giet M, Schwarzfeld C, Laufer U, Liermann D, Zidek W. Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:180-184. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1144] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 946] [Article Influence: 39.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 86. | Kay J, Chow WH, Chan TM, Lo SK, Kwok OH, Yip A, Fan K, Lee CH, Lam WF. Acetylcysteine for prevention of acute deterioration of renal function following elective coronary angiography and intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289:553-558. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 303] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 318] [Article Influence: 15.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 87. | Briguori C, Colombo A, Violante A, Balestrieri P, Manganelli F, Paolo Elia P, Golia B, Lepore S, Riviezzo G, Scarpato P. Standard vs double dose of N-acetylcysteine to prevent contrast agent associated nephrotoxicity. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:206-211. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 180] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 157] [Article Influence: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 88. | Shyu KG, Cheng JJ, Kuan P. Acetylcysteine protects against acute renal damage in patients with abnormal renal function undergoing a coronary procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1383-1388. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 89. | Diaz-Sandoval LJ, Kosowsky BD, Losordo DW. Acetylcysteine to prevent angiography-related renal tissue injury (the APART trial). Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:356-358. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 90. | MacNeill BD, Harding SA, Bazari H, Patton KK, Colon-Hernadez P, DeJoseph D, Jang IK. Prophylaxis of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;60:458-461. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 91. | Efrati S, Dishy V, Averbukh M, Blatt A, Krakover R, Weisgarten J, Morrow JD, Stein MC, Golik A. The effect of N-acetylcysteine on renal function, nitric oxide, and oxidative stress after angiography. Kidney Int. 2003;64:2182-2187. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 92. | Miner SE, Dzavik V, Nguyen-Ho P, Richardson R, Mitchell J, Atchison D, Seidelin P, Daly P, Ross J, McLaughlin PR. N-acetylcysteine reduces contrast-associated nephropathy but not clinical events during long-term follow-up. Am Heart J. 2004;148:690-695. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 93. | Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Marana I, Lauri G, Campodonico J, Grazi M, De Metrio M, Galli S, Fabbiocchi F, Montorsi P. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy in primary angioplasty. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2773-2782. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 442] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 394] [Article Influence: 21.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 94. | Briguori C, Manganelli F, Scarpato P, Elia PP, Golia B, Riviezzo G, Lepore S, Librera M, Villari B, Colombo A. Acetylcysteine and contrast agent-associated nephrotoxicity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:298-303. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 254] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 263] [Article Influence: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 95. | Agrawal M, Wodlinger AM, Huggins CE, Tudor GE, Pieper JA, O’Reilly KP, Denu-Ciocca CJ, Stouffer GA, Ohman EM. Effect of N-acetylcysteine on serum creatinine concentration in patients with chronic renal insufficiency who are undergoing coronary angiography. Heart Drug. 2004;4:87-91. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 96. | Boccalandro F, Amhad M, Smalling RW, Sdringola S. Oral acetylcysteine does not protect renal function from moderate to high doses of intravenous radiographic contrast. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;58:336-341. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 105] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 111] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 97. | Durham JD, Caputo C, Dokko J, Zaharakis T, Pahlavan M, Keltz J, Dutka P, Marzo K, Maesaka JK, Fishbane S. A randomized controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine to prevent contrast nephropathy in cardiac angiography. Kidney Int. 2002;62:2202-2207. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 216] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 188] [Article Influence: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 98. | Fung JW, Szeto CC, Chan WW, Kum LC, Chan AK, Wong JT, Wu EB, Yip GW, Chan JY, Yu CM. Effect of N-acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast nephropathy in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency: a randomized trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:801-808. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 65] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 70] [Article Influence: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 99. | Goldenberg I, Shechter M, Matetzky S, Jonas M, Adam M, Pres H, Elian D, Agranat O, Schwammenthal E, Guetta V. Oral acetylcysteine as an adjunct to saline hydration for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy following coronary angiography. A randomized controlled trial and review of the current literature. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:212-218. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 112] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 96] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 100. | Sandhu C, Belli AM, Oliveira DB. The role of N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006;29:344-347. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 38] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 101. | Shalansky SJ, Vu T, Pate GE, Levin A, Humphries KH, Webb JG. N-acetylcysteine for prevention of radiographic contrast material-induced nephropathy: is the intravenous route best? Pharmacotherapy. 2005;25:1095-1103. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 102. | Koc F, Ozdemir K, Kaya MG, Dogdu O, Vatankulu MA, Ayhan S, Erkorkmaz U, Sonmez O, Aygul MU, Kalay N. Intravenous N-acetylcysteine plus high-dose hydration versus high-dose hydration and standard hydration for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: CASIS--a multicenter prospective controlled trial. Int J Cardiol. 2012;155:418-423. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 103. | Baker CS, Wragg A, Kumar S, De Palma R, Baker LR, Knight CJ. A rapid protocol for the prevention of contrast-induced renal dysfunction: the RAPPID study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:2114-2118. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 238] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 252] [Article Influence: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 104. | Carbonell N, Blasco M, Sanjuán R, Pérez-Sancho E, Sanchis J, Insa L, Bodí V, Núñez J, García-Ramón R, Miguel A. Intravenous N-acetylcysteine for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy: a randomised trial. Int J Cardiol. 2007;115:57-62. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 45] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 47] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 105. | Kefer JM, Hanet CE, Boitte S, Wilmotte L, De Kock M. Acetylcysteine, coronary procedure and prevention of contrast-induced worsening of renal function: which benefit for which patient? Acta Cardiol. 2003;58:555-560. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 106. | Poletti PA, Saudan P, Platon A, Mermillod B, Sautter AM, Vermeulen B, Sarasin FP, Becker CD, Martin PY. I.v. N-acetylcysteine and emergency CT: use of serum creatinine and cystatin C as markers of radiocontrast nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:687-692. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 66] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 69] [Article Influence: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 107. | Rashid ST, Salman M, Myint F, Baker DM, Agarwal S, Sweny P, Hamilton G. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in vascular patients undergoing angiography: a randomized controlled trial of intravenous N-acetylcysteine. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40:1136-1141. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 69] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 70] [Article Influence: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 108. | Recio-Mayoral A, Chaparro M, Prado B, Cózar R, Méndez I, Banerjee D, Kaski JC, Cubero J, Cruz JM. The reno-protective effect of hydration with sodium bicarbonate plus N-acetylcysteine in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention: the RENO Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1283-1288. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 199] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 188] [Article Influence: 11.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 109. | Webb JG, Pate GE, Humphries KH, Buller CE, Shalansky S, Al Shamari A, Sutander A, Williams T, Fox RS, Levin A. A randomized controlled trial of intravenous N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization: lack of effect. Am Heart J. 2004;148:422-429. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 122] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 129] [Article Influence: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 110. | Kotlyar E, Keogh AM, Thavapalachandran S, Allada CS, Sharp J, Dias L, Muller D. Prehydration alone is sufficient to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy after day-only angiography procedures--a randomized controlled trial. Heart Lung Circ. 2005;14:245-251. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 111. | Pannu N, Wiebe N, Tonelli M. Prophylaxis strategies for contrast-induced nephropathy. JAMA. 2006;295:2765-2779. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 296] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 246] [Article Influence: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 112. | Shalansky SJ, Pate GE, Levin A, Webb JG. N-acetylcysteine for prevention of radiocontrast induced nephrotoxicity: the importance of dose and route of administration. Heart. 2005;91:997-999. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 113. | Alonso A, Lau J, Jaber BL, Weintraub A, Sarnak MJ. Prevention of radiocontrast nephropathy with N-acetylcysteine in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:1-9. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 178] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 188] [Article Influence: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 114. | Birck R, Krzossok S, Markowetz F, Schnülle P, van der Woude FJ, Braun C. Acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast nephropathy: meta-analysis. Lancet. 2003;362:598-603. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 342] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 357] [Article Influence: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 115. | Duong MH, MacKenzie TA, Malenka DJ. N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis significantly reduces the risk of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: comprehensive meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;64:471-479. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 75] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 79] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 116. | Guru V, Fremes SE. The role of N-acetylcysteine in preventing radiographic contrast-induced nephropathy. Clin Nephrol. 2004;62:77-83. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 117. | Isenbarger DW, Kent SM, O'Malley PG. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on the usefulness of acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast nephropathy. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:1454-1458. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 91] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 71] [Article Influence: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 118. | Kelly AM, Dwamena B, Cronin P, Bernstein SJ, Carlos RC. Meta-analysis: effectiveness of drugs for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:284-294. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 119. | Liu R, Nair D, Ix J, Moore DH, Bent S. N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:193-200. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 78] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81] [Article Influence: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 120. | Misra D, Leibowitz K, Gowda RM, Shapiro M, Khan IA. Role of N-acetylcysteine in prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiovascular procedures: a meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2004;27:607-610. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 48] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 50] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 121. | Trivedi H, Daram S, Szabo A, Bartorelli AL, Marenzi G. High-dose N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Med. 2009;122:874.e9-874.15. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 122. | Bagshaw SM, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after intravascular angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2004;2:38. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 77] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 80] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 123. | Gonzales DA, Norsworthy KJ, Kern SJ, Banks S, Sieving PC, Star RA, Natanson C, Danner RL. A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity. BMC Med. 2007;5:32. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 112] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 117] [Article Influence: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 124. | Kshirsagar AV, Poole C, Mottl A, Shoham D, Franceschini N, Tudor G, Agrawal M, Denu-Ciocca C, Magnus Ohman E, Finn WF. N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of radiocontrast induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:761-769. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 168] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 175] [Article Influence: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 125. | Nallamothu BK, Shojania KG, Saint S, Hofer TP, Humes HD, Moscucci M, Bates ER. Is acetylcysteine effective in preventing contrast-related nephropathy? A meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2004;117:938-947. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 132] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 133] [Article Influence: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 126. | Pannu N, Manns B, Lee H, Tonelli M. Systematic review of the impact of N-acetylcysteine on contrast nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2004;65:1366-1374. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 200] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 158] [Article Influence: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 127. | Zagler A, Azadpour M, Mercado C, Hennekens CH. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials. Am Heart J. 2006;151:140-145. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 103] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 108] [Article Influence: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 128. | Lloberas N, Torras J, Herrero-Fresneda I, Cruzado JM, Riera M, Hurtado I, Grinyó JM. Postischemic renal oxidative stress induces inflammatory response through PAF and oxidized phospholipids. Prevention by antioxidant treatment. FASEB J. 2002;16:908-910. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 129. | Durak I, Ozbek H, Karaayvaz M, Oztürk HS. Cisplatin induces acute renal failure by impairing antioxidant system in guinea pigs: effects of antioxidant supplementation on the cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2002;25:1-8. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 45] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 48] [Article Influence: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 130. | Spargias K, Alexopoulos E, Kyrzopoulos S, Iokovis P, Greenwood DC, Manginas A, Voudris V, Pavlides G, Buller CE, Kremastinos D. Ascorbic acid prevents contrast-mediated nephropathy in patients with renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography or intervention. Circulation. 2004;110:2837-2842. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 209] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 225] [Article Influence: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 131. | Boscheri A, Weinbrenner C, Botzek B, Reynen K, Kuhlisch E, Strasser RH. Failure of ascorbic acid to prevent contrast-media induced nephropathy in patients with renal dysfunction. Clin Nephrol. 2007;68:279-286. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 132. | Brueck M, Cengiz H, Boening A. N-acetylcysteine or ascorbic acid versus placebo to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing elective cardiac catheterization: a single center, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. JACC. 2011;57:E595. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 133. | Bellosta S, Ferri N, Bernini F, Paoletti R, Corsini A. Non-lipid-related effects of statins. Ann Med. 2000;32:164-176. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 226] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 234] [Article Influence: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 134. | Schönbeck U, Libby P. Inflammation, immunity, and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors: statins as antiinflammatory agents? Circulation. 2004;109:II18-II26. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 252] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 295] [Article Influence: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 135. | Sugiyama M, Ohashi M, Takase H, Sato K, Ueda R, Dohi Y. Effects of atorvastatin on inflammation and oxidative stress. Heart Vessels. 2005;20:133-136. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 59] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 50] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 136. | Attallah N, Yassine L, Musial J, Yee J, Fisher K. The potential role of statins in contrast nephropathy. Clin Nephrol. 2004;62:273-278. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 137. | Khanal S, Attallah N, Smith DE, Kline-Rogers E, Share D, O'Donnell MJ, Moscucci M. Statin therapy reduces contrast-induced nephropathy: an analysis of contemporary percutaneous interventions. Am J Med. 2005;118:843-849. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 142] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 158] [Article Influence: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 138. | Patti G, Nusca A, Chello M, Pasceri V, D'Ambrosio A, Vetrovec GW, Di Sciascio G. Usefulness of statin pretreatment to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy and to improve long-term outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:279-285. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 101] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 109] [Article Influence: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 139. | Jo SH, Koo BK, Park JS, Kang HJ, Cho YS, Kim YJ, Youn TJ, Chung WY, Chae IH, Choi DJ. Prevention of radiocontrast medium-induced nephropathy using short-term high-dose simvastatin in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography (PROMISS) trial--a randomized controlled study. Am Heart J. 2008;155:499.e1-499.e8. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 140. | Ozhan H, Erden I, Ordu S, Aydin M, Caglar O, Basar C, Yalcin S, Alemdar R. Efficacy of short-term high-dose atorvastatin for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Angiology. 2010;61:711-714. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 66] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 74] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 141. | Toso A, Maioli M, Leoncini M, Gallopin M, Tedeschi D, Micheletti C, Manzone C, Amato M, Bellandi F. Usefulness of atorvastatin (80 mg) in prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic renal disease. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:288-292. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 114] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 123] [Article Influence: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 142. | Kandula P, Shah R, Singh N, Markwell SJ, Bhensdadia N, Navaneethan SD. Statins for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing non-emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Nephrology (Carlton). 2010;15:165-170. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 26] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 143. | Zhang T, Shen LH, Hu LH, He B. Statins for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Nephrol. 2011;33:344-351. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 144. | Weisbord SD, Palevsky PM. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with volume expansion. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:273-280. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 129] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 139] [Article Influence: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 145. | Trivedi HS, Moore H, Nasr S, Aggarwal K, Agrawal A, Goel P, Hewett J. A randomized prospective trial to assess the role of saline hydration on the development of contrast nephrotoxicity. Nephron Clin Pract. 2003;93:C29-C34. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 146. | Mueller C, Buerkle G, Buettner HJ, Petersen J, Perruchoud AP, Eriksson U, Marsch S, Roskamm H. Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:329-336. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 582] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 500] [Article Influence: 22.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 147. | Katholi RE, Woods WT, Taylor GJ, Deitrick CL, Womack KA, Katholi CR, McCann WP. Oxygen free radicals and contrast nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:64-71. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 147] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 159] [Article Influence: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 148. | Atkins JL. Effect of sodium bicarbonate preloading on ischemic renal failure. Nephron. 1986;44:70-74. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 48] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 50] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 149. | Merten GJ, Burgess WP, Gray LV, Holleman JH, Roush TS, Kowalchuk GJ, Bersin RM, Van Moore A, Simonton CA, Rittase RA. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:2328-2334. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 818] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 848] [Article Influence: 42.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 150. | Briguori C, Airoldi F, D'Andrea D, Bonizzoni E, Morici N, Focaccio A, Michev I, Montorfano M, Carlino M, Cosgrave J. Renal Insufficiency Following Contrast Media Administration Trial (REMEDIAL): a randomized comparison of 3 preventive strategies. Circulation. 2007;115:1211-1217. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 151. | Masuda M, Yamada T, Mine T, Morita T, Tamaki S, Tsukamoto Y, Okuda K, Iwasaki Y, Hori M, Fukunami M. Comparison of usefulness of sodium bicarbonate versus sodium chloride to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing an emergent coronary procedure. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:781-786. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 117] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 89] [Article Influence: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 152. | Ozcan EE, Guneri S, Akdeniz B, Akyildiz IZ, Senaslan O, Baris N, Aslan O, Badak O. Sodium bicarbonate, N-acetylcysteine, and saline for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy. A comparison of 3 regimens for protecting contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary procedures. A single-center prospective controlled trial. Am Heart J. 2007;154:539-544. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 128] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 135] [Article Influence: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 153. | Pakfetrat M, Nikoo MH, Malekmakan L, Tabandeh M, Roozbeh J, Nasab MH, Ostovan MA, Salari S, Kafi M, Vaziri NM. A comparison of sodium bicarbonate infusion versus normal saline infusion and its combination with oral acetazolamide for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a randomized, double-blind trial. Int Urol Nephrol. 2009;41:629-634. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 43] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 40] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 154. | Tamura A, Goto Y, Miyamoto K, Naono S, Kawano Y, Kotoku M, Watanabe T, Kadota J. Efficacy of single-bolus administration of sodium bicarbonate to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with mild renal insufficiency undergoing an elective coronary procedure. Am J Cardiol. 2009;104:921-925. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 44] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 47] [Article Influence: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 155. | Ueda H, Yamada T, Masuda M, Okuyama Y, Morita T, Furukawa Y, Koji T, Iwasaki Y, Okada T, Kawasaki M. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy by bolus injection of sodium bicarbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing emergent coronary procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1163-1167. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 30] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 156. | Brar SS, Shen AY, Jorgensen MB, Kotlewski A, Aharonian VJ, Desai N, Ree M, Shah AI, Burchette RJ. Sodium bicarbonate vs sodium chloride for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;300:1038-1046. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 292] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 295] [Article Influence: 18.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 157. | Maioli M, Toso A, Leoncini M, Gallopin M, Tedeschi D, Micheletti C, Bellandi F. Sodium bicarbonate versus saline for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography or intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:599-604. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 183] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 168] [Article Influence: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 158. | Vasheghani-Farahani A, Sadigh G, Kassaian SE, Khatami SM, Fotouhi A, Razavi SA, Mansournia MA, Yamini-Sharif A, Amirzadegan A, Salarifar M. Sodium bicarbonate plus isotonic saline versus saline for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;54:610-618. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 60] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 66] [Article Influence: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 159. | From AM, Bartholmai BJ, Williams AW, Cha SS, Pflueger A, McDonald FS. Sodium bicarbonate is associated with an increased incidence of contrast nephropathy: a retrospective cohort study of 7977 patients at mayo clinic. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:10-18. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 92] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 101] [Article Influence: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 160. | Joannidis M, Schmid M, Wiedermann CJ. Prevention of contrast media-induced nephropathy by isotonic sodium bicarbonate: a meta-analysis. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2008;120:742-748. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 54] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 48] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 161. | Hogan SE, L'Allier P, Chetcuti S, Grossman PM, Nallamothu BK, Duvernoy C, Bates E, Moscucci M, Gurm HS. Current role of sodium bicarbonate-based preprocedural hydration for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2008;156:414-421. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 77] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 83] [Article Influence: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 162. | Ho KM, Morgan DJ. Use of isotonic sodium bicarbonate to prevent radiocontrast nephropathy in patients with mild pre-existing renal impairment: a meta-analysis. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008;36:646-653. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 163. | Meier P, Ko DT, Tamura A, Tamhane U, Gurm HS. Sodium bicarbonate-based hydration prevents contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2009;7:23. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 101] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 91] [Article Influence: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 164. | Brown JR, Block CA, Malenka DJ, O'Connor GT, Schoolwerth AC, Thompson CA. Sodium bicarbonate plus N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis: a meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:1116-1124. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 165. | Kanbay M, Covic A, Coca SG, Turgut F, Akcay A, Parikh CR. Sodium bicarbonate for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials. Int Urol Nephrol. 2009;41:617-627. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 49] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 41] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 166. | Navaneethan SD, Singh S, Appasamy S, Wing RE, Sehgal AR. Sodium bicarbonate therapy for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53:617-627. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 152] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 157] [Article Influence: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 167. | Hoste EA, De Waele JJ, Gevaert SA, Uchino S, Kellum JA. Sodium bicarbonate for prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:747-758. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 86] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 75] [Article Influence: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 168. | Zoungas S, Ninomiya T, Huxley R, Cass A, Jardine M, Gallagher M, Patel A, Vasheghani-Farahani A, Sadigh G, Perkovic V. Systematic review: sodium bicarbonate treatment regimens for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:631-638. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 169. | Brar SS, Hiremath S, Dangas G, Mehran R, Brar SK, Leon MB. Sodium bicarbonate for the prevention of contrast induced-acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:1584-1592. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 126] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 133] [Article Influence: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 170. | Kunadian V, Zaman A, Spyridopoulos I, Qiu W. Sodium bicarbonate for the prevention of contrast induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of published clinical trials. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79:48-55. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 171. | Trivedi H, Nadella R, Szabo A. Hydration with sodium bicarbonate for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nephrol. 2010;74:288-296. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |