The Annals New | Pharmaco Epidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 56-64.
© 1992 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spinler, S.
Right arrow Articles by Goldfarb, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Spinler, S.
Right arrow Articles by Goldfarb, S


Research Articles

Nephrotoxicity of contrast media following cardiac angiography: pathogenesis, clinical course, and preventive measures, including the role of low-osmolality contrast media

SA Spinler and S Goldfarb

OBJECTIVE: To review the incidence, definition, clinical course, risk factors, pathogenesis and prevention of contrast-associated nephropathy (CAN) following cardiac angiography with emphasis on differences between high-osmolality contrast media (HOCM) and low-osmolality contrast media (LOCM). DATA SOURCES: Investigations in animal models and in patients following cardiac angiography. DATA EXTRACTION: Animal models of the pathogenesis of CAN are presented. Human studies describing the incidence, clinical course, risk factors, and prevention of CAN are reviewed. Comparative clinical trials of HOCM (diatrizoate, metrizoate) and LOCM (iohexol, iopamidol, ioxaglate) nephrotoxicity following cardiac angiography are critically evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: All clinical studies comparing CAN of HOCM versus LOCM following cardiac angiography have some methodologic limitations (e.g., small sample size, lack of control for other factors) that may affect renal function, lack of stratification for other reported risk factors, and variable or short follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: Whether the incidence of CAN following cardiac angiography is reduced with LOCM remains controversial. The incidence of CAN in patients with normal renal function does not appear to differ in patients treated with LOCM versus HOCM because few patients in each group develop renal failure. Additional controlled clinical trials comparing CAN of LOCM and HOCM in patients with renal dysfunction are needed. Because of greater product cost and scarcity of documented benefit compared with HOCM, selection of LOCM based on the presence of renal dysfunction cannot be recommended at this time.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol.Home page
K. Hardiek, R. E. Katholi, V. Ramkumar, and C. Deitrick
Proximal tubule cell response to radiographic contrast media
Am J Physiol Renal Physiol, January 1, 2001; 280(1): F61 - F70.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1992 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.