Contrast Nephropathy

With the increasing use of radiographic contrast media in diagnostic and interventional procedures, contrast-induced nephropathy (CN) has become an important cause of iatrogenic acute renal impairment. In fact, CN is the third leading cause of new acute renal failure in hospitalized patients (1). The pathophysiology and risk factors for this complication are becoming better understood, but there is still controversy surrounding many aspects. The purpose of this article is to review recent developments in the area of CN. Particular emphasis will be placed on means of minimizing the risk or preventing this important problem. Definition and Clinical Features Many different definitions of CN appear in the literature, but it is commonly defined as an acute decline in renal function following the administration of intravenous contrast in the absence of other causes. For research purposes, a definition such as a rise in serum creatinine ≥25 or 50% above the baseline value is often used. Patients with CN typically present with an acute rise in serum creatinine anywhere from 24 to 48 h after the contrast study. Serum creatinine generally peaks at 3 to 5 d and returns to baseline value by 7 to 10 d (2,3,4). The acute renal failure is nonoliguric in most cases (5, 6). Urinalysis often reveals granular casts, tubular epithelial cells, and minimal proteinuria, but in many cases may be entirely bland. Most, but not all, patients exhibit low fractional excretion of sodium (5, 7), The diagnosis of CN is frequently obvious if the typical course of events follows the administration of contrast. However, other causes of acute renal failure, including atheromatous embolic disease, ischemia, and other nephrotoxins should always be considered. This is particularly true if significant renal impairment should occur in patients without risk factors for CN. Pathogenesis CN appears to be the result of a synergistic combination of direct renal tubular epithelial cell toxicity and renal medullary ischemia (8). Direct cytotoxicity in CN is suggested by histologic changes of cell injury and enzymuria after contrast administration (9). The nature of the contrast, associated ions, concentration, and concomitant hypoxia are all important to the degree of cellular damage, while the osmolality of the solution seems to be of secondary importance (8). The injection of contrast induces a biphasic hemodynamic change in the kidney, with an initial, transient increase and then a more prolonged decrease in renal blood flow (2). The mediators of these changes are still unknown. Alterations in the metabolism of prostaglandin, nitric oxide, endothelin, or adenosine may play a role. Risk Factors and Epidemiology Mild, transient decreases in GFR occur after contrast administration in almost all patient (10). Whether a patient develops clinically significant acute renal failure, however, depends very much on the presence or absence of certain risk factors (Table 1). A multivariate analysis of prospective trials has shown that baseline renal impairment, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and higher doses of contrast media increase the risk of CN (8). Other risk factors include reduced effective arterial volume (e.g., due to dehydration, nephrosis, cirrhosis) or concurrent use of potentially nephrotoxic drugs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Multiple myeloma has been suggested as a potential risk factor for CN, but a large retrospective study failed to demonstrate an increased risk in these patients (11). Of all these risk factors, preexisting renal impairment appears to be the single most important; patients with diabetes mellitus and renal impairment, however, have a substantially higher risk of CN than patients with renal impairment alone (12, 13).Table 1: Risk factors for contrast nephropathyProspective studies have produced extremely varied estimates of the incidence of CN. These discrepancies are due to differences in the definition of renal failure as well as differences in patient comorbidity and the presence of other potential causes of acute renal failure. A recent epidemiologic study reported a rate of 14.5% in a series of approximately 1800 consecutive patients undergoing invasive cardiac procedures (14). Patients without any significant risk factors have a much lower risk, averaging about 3% in prospective studies (9). On the other hand, the risk of renal failure after contrast rises with the number of risk factors present. In one study, the frequency of renal failure rose progressively from 1.2 to 100% as the number of risk factors went from zero to four (15). Clinical Outcomes The clinical importance of CN may not be immediately obvious given the high frequency of recovery of renal function, but it is by no means a benign complication. Dialysis is infrequently required (16, 17). Some degree of residual renal impairment has been reported in as many as 30% of those affected by CN (18). Other comorbid events such as hypotension, sepsis, and atheroembolic disease certainly contribute. The occurrence of acute renal failure can prolong the hospital stay (19). Finally, there is some evidence that mortality may be increased in patients with CN. In a retrospective study, Levy et al. compared the outcomes of hospitalized patients with CN to a control group of patients matched for age, baseline serum creatinine, and type of diagnostic procedure that received contrast but did not develop CN. The mortality in the CN group was 34% compared with 7% in the control group (P 1.6 mg/dl (141 μmol/L) before contrast administration, however, the use of high-osmolality contrast was associated with a risk of CN that was 3.3 times greater than that in the low-osmolality contrast group (17). Because of the large sample size of this trial, the results of the meta-analysis by Barrett and Carlisle were dependent on it; the conclusion, however, seemed compatible with the results of all individual studies (22). The apparent lack of difference between high- and low-osmolality media in those with normal renal function may reflect the very low risk of CN in such patients. Based on the accumulated evidence to date, it makes sense to consider nonionic low-osmolality contrast for patients with renal impairment, especially due to diabetic nephropathy, to minimize CN. It is not necessary to use nonionic media to reduce CN in patients with normal renal function who are at very low risk of clinically important changes in renal function. Fluid Administration The administration of intravenous fluids has long been used to reduce the likelihood of CN for high-risk patients. The rationale for this approach is that giving fluids before the study may correct subclinical dehydration, whereas hydration for a period of time afterward may counter an osmotic diuresis resulting from the contrast. Some benefits of this approach have been suggested by uncontrolled and retrospective studies (23, 24), but there has never been a randomized, controlled trial of deliberate hydration versus no intervention for the prevention of CN. It is clear that even vigorous fluid administration does not afford complete protection from CN for high-risk patients. In a recent study by Solomon et al., for example, 11% of patients with chronic renal insufficiency developed CN despite saline administration beforehand (25). Even if only modestly beneficial, however, this approach is simple and carries minimal risks of adverse effects if appropriate care is taken, i.e., close monitoring of the patient's fluid balance and clinical status. A reasonable starting protocol might use intravenous 0.45% saline at a rate of 1 ml/kg per h, beginning 1 to 2 h before contrast and continuing for up to 24 h, depending on the duration of the attendant diuresis. The protocol should be flexible to allow an increase in rate if a negative fluid balance seems to be developing. For outpatient procedures, a protocol using oral hydration before the procedure and intravenous 0.45% saline for 6 h afterward has been shown to be as successful as inpatient hydration in preventing CN (26). Furosemide The use of furosemide as prophylaxis for CN has been controversial. It has been hypothesised that loop diuretics might reduce the potential for ischemic injury by interfering with active transport and decreasing the oxygen demands of medullary tubular segments (27). Recent studies, however, suggest that furosemide may actually be detrimental in certain patients. In a randomized trial of patients with renal insufficiency undergoing cardiac catheterization, Solomon et al. found that acute renal impairment was more common in a group treated with saline and furosemide compared with a group given saline alone. Serum creatinine rose even in those patients who gained weight, making it unlikely that dehydration alone accounted for the adverse effects of the diuretic (25). Weinstein and colleagues also found an increase in the mean serum creatinine for a group of patients given furosemide, while a control group given fluids alone had no change in serum creatinine following contrast (28). In this study, the patients in the furosemide-treated group did lose weight, suggesting that dehydration may have played a role. Most recently, Stevens et al. reported the results of a randomized trial in which high-risk patients undergoing cardiac catheterization were treated with a combination of fluid therapy, furosemide, mannitol, and low-dose dopamine and compared with a control group treated with hydration alone (29). The investigators attempted to ensure that each patient maintained extracellular volume by replacing urine output with intravenous saline. Although the authors concluded that this regimen of forced diuresis provided a modest benefit in preventing CN, there was no statistical difference in the mean rise in serum creatinine at 48 h between the groups. Because CN occurred in 41% of patients with a urine output ≤150 ml/h in the first 24 h compared with 16.2% of those with urine output greater than this, the authors suggest that high urine output may be protective against CN. An alternative explanation is that patients who developed renal impairment had reduced urine output. Thus, there is currently more evidence arguing against rather than for the use of furosemide for the prophylaxis of CN, and its use for this purpose is not recommended. Mannitol of have also been widely used to CN, but its use is controversial. Mannitol no protective in the study by Solomon et al. In fact, patients with chronic renal insufficiency treated with saline and had a higher incidence of CN than those treated with saline alone (25). recent trial found that while did increase the risk of CN in diabetic patients with renal it was found to reduce the risk in patients however, there is not evidence to as a means to reduce CN. dopamine is a renal and is effective even in patients with chronic renal This has it very as a potential means for preventing CN, but clinical studies have shown and colleagues a randomized trial of patients with chronic renal insufficiency undergoing or of the lower of whom were Patients were randomized to dopamine per beginning 1 h before and continuing for h afterward or an volume of saline the time Serum creatinine rose in and there was no statistical difference between the on the first day after the procedure. In a subgroup of patients with a baseline serum creatinine mg/dl however, there was a significantly greater rise in creatinine in the control group the d of did not change in the patients receiving whereas it significantly in the control group and reported that dopamine reduced the risk of CN in patients, but there were few diabetic patients in this study et al. randomized patients undergoing cardiac angiography to low-dose dopamine or fluids alone. Patients with diabetic nephropathy had lower renal blood flow than patients with a degree of renal impairment and only the diabetic patients had a rise in renal blood flow in to dopamine was associated with an increased rate of CN in the diabetic patients but seemed to the patients Finally, et al. reported no difference in the rate of CN in high-risk patients undergoing angiography randomized to saline or saline dopamine (19). of the patients in this study were but subgroup analysis of the of dopamine in diabetic patients versus patients was not Although it appears that dopamine may be of some benefit in preventing CN in patients, more evidence is required before it can be for routine should not be used to CN in diabetic patients. may with the of CN by increasing renal blood but clinical studies have not shown such a benefit. and colleagues that was associated with an increase in renal blood flow in diabetic patients with renal but this agent was than and probably for such patients results were found in a study by et al., in which and all an increase in renal blood flow in diabetic patients with renal failure, but increased the risk of CN compared to patients given saline alone. was to saline alone in patients, in whom and dopamine a randomized, trial of was reported by the in which patients were given saline or one of doses of starting h before and h after contrast administration. of the patients were did not reduce the risk of CN or in the defined by diabetic Based on this evidence be for prophylaxis of CN. of this have been shown to the decreases in renal blood flow by contrast in randomized trials of agents for the prevention of CN have been et al. of a day for 3 d beginning before contrast to patients and matching to cases. The patients had close to normal baseline renal function. by at 2 d in the control whereas it was in the patients et al. 10 of before high-osmolality contrast for intravenous in 10 patients. control were given high- or low-osmolality contrast without a an acute increase in renal flow and GFR a whereas these decreased with high- and were with low-osmolality contrast and colleagues patients nonionic contrast with fluids to a single dose of 10 of or no before contrast. patients were and there were more diabetic patients in the group not given versus The with renal is not but the serum creatinine before contrast was in the normal There was change in serum creatinine 48 h in group These studies are all and not include high-risk patients with renal randomized trials are particularly in high-risk patients, before can be for the prevention of CN. Patients taking for other however, should their Because adenosine has been suggested as a role in the of CN, an adenosine has been as a means to reduce the risk of this complication. In one of the first studies, et al. compared to 5 given before nonionic contrast in patients. of the had a GFR and about were There were no clinically important changes in renal function in although the in creatinine, and in the group and colleagues compared with given h for four doses starting before angiography in patients. This trial used a with patients randomized to high-osmolality or low-osmolality contrast. group received nonionic contrast with an adenosine patients had a serum creatinine of mg/dl μmol/L) and about were although had > 1 all were receiving and all were given deliberate the in creatinine 24 h after nonionic contrast and reduced that after contrast by about Serum creatinine was not significantly in any the rise in adenosine and the in creatinine after nonionic contrast (10). recent studies have on higher risk patients. et al. randomized patients with serum creatinine mg/dl undergoing to saline hydration saline hydration dopamine or saline hydration by a of per h starting 2 h before the patients were in each with more than of patients were with 0.45% saline and received nonionic contrast. dopamine reduced the incidence of CN compared with saline hydration alone (19). and colleagues patients with serum creatinine mg/dl receiving contrast patients were and patients were randomized to of or patients the Serum creatinine and creatinine at baseline and for 3 d after contrast administration did not change significantly in suggesting that provided no benefit hydration alone in these patients. however, did the increase in enzymuria in the group These studies suggest that some of the changes in renal function, but a benefit saline hydration alone has not been This is particularly true with to patients with preexisting renal impairment. there may be some value to the use of for reduction of CN in those at Although the and of administration of in each study, it seems that a dose of for less than 2 starting before contrast, of Renal from Contrast In most cases the injury resulting from CN is and renal impairment a or of nephrotoxic and control of fluid and balance is generally all that is In more may be necessary to the of renal failure. date, no specific has been found to be of benefit in the of CN. A randomized trial of as a for acute renal failure did not demonstrate an reduction in the for in a subgroup of patients with CN et al. randomized 72 patients who developed CN after to 0.45% saline or saline dopamine 1 ml/kg per h until serum creatinine to its baseline to be as patients in this group had higher serum creatinine and required more frequently than patients in the control (19). CN is an important cause of iatrogenic acute renal failure and carries significant risks for affected patients. The most effective for the prevention of this complication is procedure selection and patient Patients with risk factors for CN who contrast administration should have the risks corrected before to a contrast agent if Patients with risk factors should the minimal necessary dose of contrast, and should have their renal function by serum creatinine before and at 48 to 72 h after contrast administration. intervention has been shown to CN in high-risk patients, with the possible of intravenous hydration and the use of contrast in patients. Furosemide and should not be used as a means to reduce CN.