This phenomenon, termed â€oe¿ contrast media induced nephropathy,― has been reported to be the third most common cause of hospital acquired renal failure after surgery and hy potension I I ], making it a significant cause of morbidity andmortality.Although theex istence of contrast mediaâ€"induced nephropa thy is universally accepted, its pathogenesis and the potential benefit, if any, of newer contrast medium formulations and prophy lactic regimens are controversial. This article provides a practical overview of all aspects of contrast mediaâ€"induced nephropathy, in cluding epidemiology, mechanisms, treat ment, and prevention.
EpidemiologyEarly case reports noted the ability of ra diographic contrast media to induce renal failure. By the 1950s, contraindication of contrast media in patients with preexisting renal impairment was generally accepted [2, 31. Nevertheless,many researcherscontin ued to advocate high-dose urography to en hance opacitication of the genitourinary tract in patients with renal insufficiency. These re searchers thought that, as long as patients were appropriately hydrated, the nephrotoxic effects of contrast media could be largely dis counted [4â€"7].However, subsequent large scale retrospective and prospective studies have clearly shown the potential of radio graphic contrast media to induce acute renal failure, particularly in patients with preexisting azotemia [8â€"20].Although nearly all studies have confirmed the existence of contrast mediaâ€"inducedneph ropathy, the reported incidence has varied widely. A recent review of seven retrospective and eight prospective studies of contrast me diaâ€"inducednephropathy reported incidence rates ranging from 5% to 17% and from 0% to 22%, respectively [21]. In large measure, the marked variation in the reported incidence of contrast mediaâ€"inducednephropathy can be attributed to the differing criteria used to de fine the disease. Ideally, renal impairment should be assessed by serial measurements of creatinine clearance. However, practical con siderations have forced many investigators to rely on isolated serum creatinine measure ments. Percentage increases in serum creati nine level ranging from 20% to 50% have been arbitrarily chosen as markers for signifi cant renal impairment. Absolute threshold in creases in creatinine from as little as 0.3 mg/dl to as large a.s I .0 mg/dl have also been applied [22]. Differences in the timing of serum creat mine measurements after contrast medium ad ministration have also made comparison of studies difficult. Finally, the presence of mul tiple comorbid risk factors has complicated at tempts to define a global prevalence rate for contrast mediaâ€"induced nephropathy. Retro spective studies of patients without predispos ing risk factors have suggested an incidence rate of less than I% [23, 241, whereas large prospective studies have indicated an average rate of 3% in patients without diabetes or pre existing azotemia [9, 25â€"28].
Controversies about appropriate definitions and measurements should not...