Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on April 12, 2006
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2006 21(8):2120-2126; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl133
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/8/2120    most recent
gfl133v1
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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dussol, B.
Right arrow Articles by Berland, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dussol, B.
Right arrow Articles by Berland, Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Original Articles: Clinical Nephrology

A randomized trial of saline hydration to prevent contrast nephropathy in chronic renal failure patients

Bertrand Dussol1,2, Sophie Morange2, Anderson Loundoun3, Pascal Auquier3 and Yvon Berland1,2

1 Service de Néphrologie-Hémodialyse-Transplantation rénale, Hôpital de la Conception, 2 Centre d'Investigation Clinique, Hôpital Sainte Marguerite and 3 Unité d'Epidémiologie Prévention et Santé Publique, Faculté de Médecine de la Timone, Marseille, France

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Prof. Bertrand Dussol, Service de Néphrologie-Hémodialyse-Transplantation rénale, Hôpital de la Conception, 147 Bd Baille, 13385 Marseille Cedex 5, France. Email: bdussol{at}ap-hm.fr



   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 References
 
Background. Contrast nephropathy (CN) is a common cause of renal dysfunction that may be prevented by saline hydration and by drugs such as theophylline or furosemide. Whether oral saline hydration is as efficient as intravenous saline hydration is unknown. The preventive efficacy of theophylline and furosemide for CN remains controversial. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of oral saline hydration and of intravenous saline hydration plus theophylline or furosemide for the prevention of CN.

Methods. We prospectively studied 312 patients with chronic renal failure (serum creatinine 201±81 µmol/l, Cockcroft clearance 37±12 ml/min/1.73 m2), who were undergoing various radiological procedures with a non-ionic, low osmolality contrast agent. Patients were randomly assigned to four arms. In arm A, patients received 1 g/10 kg of body weight/day of sodium chloride per os for 2 days before the procedure. In arm B, patients received 0.9% saline intravenously at a rate of 15 ml/kg for 6 h before the procedure. In arm C, patients received the same saline hydration as in arm B plus 5 mg/kg theophylline per os in one dose 1 h before the procedure. In arm D, patients received the same saline hydration as in arm B plus 3 mg/kg of furosemide intravenously just after the procedure.

Results. Patients were well-matched with no significant differences at baseline in any measured parameters. Acute renal failure, defined as an increase in serum creatinine of 44 µmol/l (0.5 mg/dl), occurred in 27 out of 312 patients (8.7%). There was no significant difference between the rate of renal failure in the different arms of the study: five out of 76 (6.6%) in arm A, four out of 77 (5.2%) in arm B, six out of 80 (7.5%) in arm C and 12 out of 79 (15.2%) in arm D. No patient had fluid overload or a significant increase in blood pressure in the 2 days following the radiological procedure. The independent predictors of CN were diabetes mellitus, high baseline serum creatinine and high systolic blood pressure.

Conclusions. Oral saline hydration was as efficient as intravenous saline hydration for the prevention of CN in patients with stage 3 renal diseases. Furosemide and theophylline were not protective.

Keywords: contrast nephropathy; furosemide; randomized trial; renal failure; saline hydration; theophylline



   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 References
 
Contrast nephropathy (CN) is usually defined as acute renal failure occurring within 48 h of exposure to intravenous contrast media [1,2]. The frequency of CN depends on the definition of acute renal failure, the population studied, the type of radiological procedures, and the presence or not of risk factors [3]. CN is generally mild and reversible [4] but it can result in the need for dialysis treatment, extended hospital stays, and it contributes to morbidity and mortality, and to chronic end-stage renal failure [5].

Chronic renal failure, particularly in the case of diabetic nephropathy is the only independent risk factor in prospective studies [6,7]. Other factors characterized by reduced renal perfusion such as hypovolaemia or heart failure may also be involved [1,3].

Because radiological procedures involving contrast media are scheduled beforehand, the best treatment for CN is prevention [8]. Preventive measures include: avoidance of volume depletion, administration of anti-oxidant agents such as N-acetylcysteine [9,10], lower doses of contrast, avoidance of repetitive procedures and the use of low or iso-osmolar contrast media [11].

The optimal hydration, either the amount or the fluid to be used, isotonic saline or one-half normal saline [12] or sodium bicarbonate [13], has to be clarified. The best route to administer hydration, oral or intravenous, to prevent CN is not defined [14]. Drug interventions have also been tested in trials for prophylaxis against CN. Among these, are theophylline and furosemide. Theophylline, a nonspecific adenosine receptor antagonist, was effective in animal studies to prevent the decline of the glomerular filtration rate after contrast injection [15,16]. However, clinical studies gave contradictory results [17,18] and recently a meta-analysis showed that the overall preventive effect of theophylline against CN was modest and probably clinically non-significant [19]. Furosemide has the potential to protect the kidneys in the face of renal insults but clinical studies in different models of acute renal failure including CN did not demonstrate a protective effect [20–23]. But the use of furosemide in the setting of CN prevention by volume expansion can reduce the risk of fluid overload.

We therefore performed a prospective, randomized trial to determine if oral saline hydration or intravenous saline hydration plus either theophylline or furosemide compared with intravenous saline hydration alone could decrease the incidence of CN in patients with chronic renal failure receiving contrast media during various radiological procedures.



   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 References
 
Study population
Eligible patients were among those referred for any radiological procedures necessitating a contrast medium injection at Marseilles University Hospital, who had a baseline Cockcroft clearance between 15 and 60 ml/min (chronic kidney diseases stages 3 and 4). Patients were enrolled between May 2001 and October 2003. The patients included either had chronic renal failure on their own kidneys or on a kidney graft and whatever the aetiology of the chronic renal failure.

Exclusion criteria were patients <18-years-old, women of child-bearing potential not using a contraception, breast feeding women, patients with heart failure with ejection fraction <30%, uncontrolled arterial hypertension (blood pressure >180/110 mmHg), obvious extracellular overhydration, respiratory depression, known prior intolerance to theophylline or furosemide, and previous exposure to contrast media in the 14 days before randomization. For patients with a history of dyspnea and/or swelling, a pre-inclusion echocardiography was performed to assess left ventricular performance. Patients were also excluded if they were unwilling or unable to provide informed consent, adequate time prior to contrast media injection was not available to perform the study procedures, and if serum creatinine measurements varied by >10% in the previous weeks before referral.

The study protocol was approved by the local Ethics Committee: Comité Consultatif pour la Protection des Personnes relatif à la Recherche Biologique (CCPPRB). All patients gave written informed consent.

Study design
The study was an unblended, randomized controlled trial. Randomization was performed using a computer-generated randomization list known only to the research physician of the Centre d’Investigation Clinique (S.M.). Therefore, investigators were not aware of the next pending group assignment. Eligible patients were randomized in one of the four arms of the study 48 h before the radiological procedure (D–2). All the patients were asked to stop diuretics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and to have a normal sodium chloride (around 6 g/day) and water intake during these 48 h. Other treatments, particularly renin–angiotensine blockers and calcium channel blockers were maintained. For patients with diabetes mellitus, biguanides were stopped and replaced by insulin.

In arm A, patients received 1 g/10 kg of body weight/day of NaCl per os for the 2 days before the procedure. NaCl was given to patients as 1 or 2 g capsules in two or three doses throughout the day. In arm B, patients received 0.9% saline intravenously at a rate of 15 ml/kg for the 6 h before the procedure. We considered arm B group as our control group. In arm C, patients received the same saline hydration as in arm B plus 5 mg/kg theophylline per os in one dose 1 h before the procedure. A short-acting theophylline was given since, according to the characteristics of the drug, the plasmatic peak is reached in about 30 min and the half-life is 5–6 h. In arm D, patients received the same saline hydration as in arm B plus 3 mg/kg of furosemide intravenously just after the procedure (Figure 1). Compliance to oral saline hydration in arm A was assessed by capsules count at D0.


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Study profile.

 
Radiological procedures were at the discretion of the radiologist or the cardiologist who were permitted to use sufficient contrast media necessary to gain images. Only low osmolality non-ionic contrast media were used, mainly Hexabrix® (sodium and meglumine ioxaglate, Guerbet, Roissy, France), Xenetic® (iobitridol, Guerbet, Roissy, France), and Ultravist® (iopromide, Schering SA, Lys-lez-Lannoy, France).

Data collection
Demographic information was gathered at baseline, including age, gender, prior history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, heart failure and history of chronic renal failure. We also collected medications: anti-diabetics, immunosuppressants and anti-hypertensives. Other pertinent data were patient's weight, BMI, blood pressure and evaluation of the extracellular volume. Blood pressure, evaluation of the extracellular volume, and adverse effects of the saline hydration and of medications were recorded 24 and 48 h after the procedure.

That very day and 24 h (D1) and 48 h (D2) following radiological procedures, serum creatinine and electrolytes were recorded. As we did not ask all the patients to collect urine 24 h after the procedure, information on urinary Na and volumes were available for only 120 patients.

Study endpoints
The primary endpoint was the number of CN in each arm. CN was defined as an increase in the baseline serum creatinine concentration of at least 44 µmol/l (0.5 mg/dl) within 48 h after the injection of contrast media. We also evaluated the alteration of serum creatinine and the number of patients with fluid overload in each arm.

Statistical analysis
The SAS package was used for statistical analysis. Data were analysed by using the ANOVA procedure for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The CN was compared between groups by using Chi 2-test. All tests were two-sided. A non-inferiority study was performed as a secondary analysis [24–26]. According to the trial of Solomon et al. [20], the absolute difference between saline hydration and saline hydration plus mannitol was 17% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 10.2–25.8%]. By comparison with saline hydration intravenously, we defined non-inferiority as a difference in CN <10%. Multivariate testing was conducted by logistic regression.

All results are presented as mean±SD. Differences were considered statistically significant at a P level of 0.05.



   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusion
 References
 
A total of 315 subjects were enrolled, but one patient did not have contrast medium injection and two were lost for follow-up. Thus, 312 patients completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 64±14 years, 217 (70%) patients were men, 99 (32%) had diabetes mellitus, 252 (80%) had chronic renal failure on their own kidneys and 60 (20%) on a kidney transplant. Causes of chronic renal failure were chronic glomerulonephritis (n = 69, 22%), interstitial nephritis (n = 24, 7.7%), hypertension (n = 83, 27%), others (n = 68, 22%) and undetermined (n = 68, 22%). Previous cardiovascular disease (stroke, myocardial infraction, aortic aneurysm and peripheral arteritis) was present in 142 patients (46%) and 55 (17.7%) had heart failure (ejection fraction ≤40%). The radiological procedures were coronarography or angiography in 108 (35%) patients and tomodensitometry in 174 (56%) patients. Other radiological procedures were intravenous urography (n = 6), phlebography (n = 6), pulmonary angiography (n = 15) and fistulography (n = 3). Baseline serum creatinine was 201±81 µmol/l, and Cockcroft clearance 37±12 ml/min/1.73 m2.

Baseline characteristics for the patients in the four arms of the study are displayed in Table 1. Patients were well-matched with no significant differences at baseline in any measured parameters. The percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus or heart failure as well as baseline serum creatinine and Cockcroft clearance was similar in the study groups. The mean dose of contrast medium was not different in each arm.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the patients with chronic renal insufficiency in the four treatment groups

 
Acute renal failure, defined as an increase in serum creatinine of 44 µmol/l (0.5 mg/dl), occurred in 27 out of 312 patients (8.7%). There were no significant differences between the rate of CN in the different arms of the study: five out of 76 (6.6%, 95% CI 2.2–14.7) in arm A, four out of 77 (5.2%, 95% CI 1.4–12.8) in arm B, six out of 80 (7.5%, 95% CI 2.8–15.6) in arm C, and 12 out of 79 (15.2%, 95% CI 8.1–25.0) in arm D (Figure 2) (P>0.05). According to the non-inferiority test, the rate of CN was not inferior in arm B in comparison with those in arms A and C (P = NS), but it was inferior in comparison with arm D (P<0.05).


Figure 2
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Prevalence of CN in the four arms of the study.

 
An increase in serum creatinine of 88 µmol/l (≥1 mg/dl) was found in only 11 out of 312 patients (3.5%): three in arm A, one in arm B, two in arm C and five in arm D. An increase in serum creatinine of 176 µmol/l (≥2 mg/dl) was observed in one patient. No patient required haemodialysis support. The mean change in serum creatinine concentrations, Cockcroft clearances and GFR estimate by MDRD formula at baseline (D0) and at 24 h (D1) and 48 h (D2) post-radiological procedure were non-significantly different in each arm (data not shown).

No patient had obvious fluid overload or a significant increase in blood pressure requiring antihypertensive treatments in the 2 days following the radiological procedure. Weight gains were +0.56±0.52 kg between D-2 and D1 in arm A, +0.13±0.12 kg between D0 and D1 in arm B, –1.14±0.7 kg between D0 and D1 in arm C, and –0.46±1.25 kg between D0 and D1 in arm D (P = NS for intra-group and inter-group comparisons). Alterations of 24 h urinary Na excretions, available for only 120 patients, are displayed in Table 2. Intra-group and inter-group 24 h urinary Na alterations were not statistically different except for group D between D0 and D1 (P<0.05).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. 24 h urinary Na excretions in the four treatment groups between baseline and D1

 
No adverse effects were reported by patients in the theophylline and furosemide arms. One patient had vomiting in arm A.

By univariate analysis, predictors of CN were an elevated baseline serum creatinine, the presence of diabetes mellitus, an older age and a high baseline blood pressure. Calcium antagonist treatment was protective. Importantly the volume of contrast medium, the type of radiological procedures and heart failure were not risk predictors. By multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus, an elevated baseline serum creatinine, and an elevated baseline blood pressure remained independent predictors of CN (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Risk factors for CN by logistic regression

 


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusion
 References
 
The overall rate of CN was low (8.7%) in this study even though it was conducted in high-risk patients. This feature is slightly lower than the range observed in patients with a similar level of renal failure [11,20]. This can be explained by the meticulous preparation of the patients in the four arms of the study. In fact all the patients were asked to stop diuretics and NSAID, and all had a normal NaCl intake for the 2 days before the radiological procedure. These simple measures for preventing CN are too often neglected [27] and this neglect may lead to CN. Furthermore, they received high NaCl intakes either by an oral or intravenous route according to the protocol. The lower than anticipated CN rate could also be due to the high percent of patients having tomodensitometry, who in general have a lower CN rate than coronary or other arteriography patients [5]. Saline hydration was in all cases well tolerated without any significant episodes of fluid overloading. This result confirmed the efficacy and the safety of saline hydration in the prevention of CN [1,2,7,8,12,14,20].

The most important finding of this study was that oral saline hydration was not inferior as intravenous saline hydration. Only two controlled trials have challenged the efficacy of oral hydration for CN prevention [28,29], review in [30]. In one study, patients undergoing cardiac catheterization received either intravenous 0.45% saline solution at 75 ml/h for 12 h pre-and post-catheterization or oral hydration (1000 ml over 10 h) followed by 6 h of intravenous hydration with 0.45% saline at 300 ml/h beginning just before contrast exposure. There was no difference in the maximal change in serum creatinine between the two groups [28]. In another trial, CN was significantly more common in patients allowed to take unrestricted oral fluids in comparison with 24 h of intravenous normal saline at a rate of 1 ml/kg/h [29]. The lack of efficacy of water-based hydration in the latter study contrasts with the efficacy of NaCl-based hydration. This may be explained by a better compliance to NaCl. In fact, NaCl was easy to take and no adverse effects were observed. An alternative explanation is that patients had larger water intake due to the increase in serum osmolality following NaCl ingestion but we did not measure 24 h diuresis for all the patients.

This result was obtained in a large population of patients with renal failure including kidney transplant recipients. We only excluded patients with obvious overhydration, uncontrolled hypertension and severe heart failure (ejection fraction <30%), reinforcing the broad external validity of our results.

We did not have a hard parameter to verify the amount of hydration in the four arms because we did not ask all the patients to collect urine 24 h before and after the procedure. Looking at the patient's weight, no statistical difference was observed during the study between the different groups. Urinary Na excretions were also comparable between baseline and D1 in groups A, B and C. In group D, the significant increase in urinary Na was obviously due to furosemide. The similar weight and urinary Na alterations in the four treatment groups were arguments for a similar volume status whatever the saline hydration administered. In group A, non-compliance was unlikely since all the patients received strong information about the rationale of oral saline hydration. Furthermore capsule count at D0 did not reveal non-compliance.

The implication of the efficacy of oral saline hydration is that patients can be prepared for scheduled radiological procedures with contrast medium injection on the basis of outpatient conditions. This is particularly convenient for the patients, and a cost-saving procedure.

In the setting of toxic renal failure prevention, furosemide may protect the kidneys since it inhibits sodium tubular transport, reducing energy requirements of cells in the thick ascending limb of Henle [31]. It also reduces tubular–glomerular feedback thus preventing a decrease in the glomerular filtration rate [32]. Finally, it may flush out intratubular casts, reducing tubular obstruction [33]. But we confirmed that furosemide was not protective but detrimental for the prevention of CN. This study provides new evidence that furosemide is harmful to prevent toxic acute renal failure [20,23,34]. Furosemide could have been useful to avoid acute fluid overload. As we did not observe such fluid overload in the arms A, B and C, furosemide seems useless in this setting.

We did not observe an additive protective effect of theophylline to saline hydration. It is possible that the effect of theophylline was not apparent because of the major protective effect of saline hydration.

We showed that renal failure and diabetes mellitus were potential predictors of CN [35–37], but not the volume of contrast medium. Several studies have demonstrated a significant correlation between CN and contrast medium volume [5,37,38], although in other studies no such relationship was found [34–35,39]. The causes of this discrepancy are not obvious but may be related to study design and/or to the differences in patients and/or to the type of radiological procedure. As in one previous study, high blood pressure was an independent predictor of CN [35]. One possible explanation is that if high blood pressure reflects renal vascular disease, the renal vasoconstriction induced by contrast medium may be particularly deleterious and further compromise renal plasma flow and glomerular filtration rate.

Study limitations
The study was initially powered to demonstrate the putative superiority of theophylline or furosemide over intravenous saline hydration. But as an interim analysis did not reveal such a superiority, we focused on the secondary endpoint of the non-inferiority of oral hydration over intravenous hydration. This non-inferiority was demonstrated but a correctly powered trial is necessary to confirm this result.



   Conclusion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
References
 
As oral saline hydration was as efficient as IV saline hydration, patients can be prepared for scheduled radiological procedures with contrast medium injection on the basis of outpatient conditions.



   Acknowledgments
 
We are indebted to Hélène Meridgen, to the radiologists (Pr J. M. Bartoli, G. Moulin, Dr M. André), to the cardiologists (Pr F. Paganelli, J. C. De Haro, G. Habib, J. L. Bonnet), to the vascular surgeons (Pr P. Piquet, A. Branchereau), to the urologists (Pr E. Lechevallier, C. Coulange, D. Rossi) and to the nephrologists of the unit (Pr P. Brunet, Dr V. Moal, R. Purgus, H. Sichez, S. Burtey, H. Vacher-Coponat) for their assistance all along this study. The English of the text was checked by Gary Burkhart and Associates. This work was supported by grant Programme Hospitalier pour la Recherche Clinique 2000 from the Ministère de la Santé.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.



   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 References
 

  1. Barrett BJ. Contrast nephrotoxicity. J Am Soc Nephrol 1994; 5: 125–137[Abstract]
  2. Solomon R. Contrast-medium-induced acute renal failure. Kidney Int 1998; 53: 230–242[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  3. Lautin EM, Freeman NJ, Schoenfeld AH et al. Radiocontrast-associated renal dysfunction: incidence and risk factors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157: 49–58[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Davidson CJ, Hlatky M, Morris KG et al. Cardiovascular and renal toxicity of a nonionic radiographic contrast agent after cardiac catheterization. A prospective trial. Ann Intern Med 1989; 110: 119–124[ISI][Medline]
  5. Manske CL, Sprafka JM, Strony JT, Wang Y. Contrast nephropathy in azotemic diabetic patients undergoing coronary angiography. Am J Med 1990; 89: 615–620[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  6. Parfrey PS, Griffiths SM, Barrett BJ et al. Contrast material-induced renal failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 143–149[Abstract]
  7. Rudnick MR, Berns JS, Cohen RM, Goldfarb S. Contrast media-associated nephrotoxicity. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1996; 5: 127–133[Medline]
  8. Asif A, Epstein M. Prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis 2004; 44: 12–24[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  9. 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[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  10. 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[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson SG et al. Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiography. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 491–499[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Mueller C, Buerkle G, Buettner HJ et al. 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[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Merten GJ, Burgess WP, Gray LV et al. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 291: 2328–2334[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Erley CM. Does hydration prevent radiocontrast-induced acute renal failure? Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14: 1064–1066[Free Full Text]
  15. Arakawa K, Suzuki H, Naitoh M et al. Role of adenosine in the renal responses to contrast medium. Kidney Int 1996; 49: 1199–1206[ISI][Medline]
  16. Erley CM, Heyne N, Burgert K et al. Prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy by adenosine antagonists in rats with chronic nitric oxide deficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997; 8: 1125–1132[Abstract]
  17. Erley CM, Duda SH, Schlepckow S et al. Adenosine antagonist theophylline prevents the reduction of glomerular filtration rate after contrast media application. Kidney Int 1994; 45: 1425–1431[ISI][Medline]
  18. Katholi RE, taylor GJ, McCann WT et al. Nephrotoxicity from contrast media: attenuation with theophylline. Radiology 1995; 195: 17–22[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Ix JH, McCulloch CE, Chertow GM. Theophylline for the prevention of radiocontrast nephropathy: a meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 2747–2753[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Solomon R, Werner C, Mann D et al. Effects of saline, mannitol, and furosemide on acute decreases in renal function induced by radiocontrast agents. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1416–1420[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Cantarovich F, Galli C, Benedetti L et al. High dose frusemide in established acute renal failure. Br Med J 1973; 4: 449–450[ISI][Medline]
  22. Cantarovich F, Rangoonwala B, Lorenz H et al. High-dose furosemide for established ARF: a prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2004; 44: 402–409[ISI][Medline]
  23. Weinstein JM, Heyman S, Brezis M. Potential deleterious effect of furosemide in radiocontrast nephropathy. Nephron 1992; 62: 413–415[ISI][Medline]
  24. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Br Med J 1996; 313: 36–39[Free Full Text]
  25. Kirshner B. Methodological standards for assessing therapeutic equivalence. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 839–849[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  26. Makuch R, Johnson M. Issues in planning and interpreting active control equivalence studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 503–11[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  27. Weisbord SD, Bruns FJ, Saul MI, Palevsky PM. Provider use of preventive strategies for radiocontrast nephropathy in high-risk patients. Nephron Clin Pract 2004; 96: C56–62[Medline]
  28. Taylor AJ, Hotchkiss D, Morse RW, McCabe J. A randomized trial of inpatient vs outpatient hydration protocols for cardiac catheterization in mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. Chest 1998; 114: 1570–1574[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  29. Trivedi HS, Moore H, Nasr S et al. A randomized prospective trial to assess the role of saline hydration on the development of contrast nephrotoxicity. Nephron Clin Pract 2003; 93: C29–34[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  30. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Preventing nephropathy induced by contrast medium. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 379–386[Free Full Text]
  31. Brezis M, Rosen S. Hypoxia of the renal medulla – its implications for disease. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 647–655[Free Full Text]
  32. Peterson OW, Gabbai FB, Myers RR et al. A single nephron model of acute tubular injury: role of tubuloglomerular feedback. Kidney Int 1989; 36: 1037–1044[ISI][Medline]
  33. Mason J, Kain H, Welsch J, Schnermann J. The early phase of experimental acute renal failure. VI. The influence of furosemide. Pflugers Arch 1981; 392: 125–133[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  34. Mehta RL, Pascual MT, Soroko S, Chertow GM, PICARD Study Group. Diuretics, mortality, and nonrecovery of renal function in acute renal failure. JAMA 2002; 288: 2547–2553[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Durham JD, Caputo C, Dokko J et al. A randomized controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine to prevent contrast nephropathy in cardiac angiography. Kidney Int 2002; 62: 2202–2207[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  36. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS, Vavasour HM et al. Contrast nephropathy in patients with impaired renal function: high versus low osmolar media. Kidney Int 1992; 41: 1274–1279[ISI][Medline]
  37. Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L et al. Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. Kidney Int 1995; 47: 254–261[ISI][Medline]
  38. Taliercio CP, Vlietstra RE, Ilstrup DM et al. A randomized comparison of the nephrotoxicity of iopamidol and diatrizoate in high risk patients undergoing cardiac angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 17: 384–390[Abstract]
  39. Moore RD, Steinberg EP, Powe NR et al. Nephrotoxicity of high-osmolality versus low-osmolality contrast media: randomized clinical trial. Radiology 1992; 182: 649–655[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Received for publication: 27. 2.06
Accepted in revised form: 2. 3.06


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
A. M. Kelly, B. Dwamena, P. Cronin, S. J. Bernstein, and R. C. Carlos
Meta-analysis: Effectiveness of Drugs for Preventing Contrast-Induced Nephropathy
Ann Intern Med, February 19, 2008; 148(4): 284 - 294.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CJASNHome page
S. D. Weisbord and P. M. Palevsky
Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy with Volume Expansion
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2008; 3(1): 273 - 280.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
R. Solomon
Contrast media nephropathy--how to diagnose and how to prevent?
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 1812 - 1815.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/8/2120    most recent
gfl133v1
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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dussol, B.
Right arrow Articles by Berland, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dussol, B.
Right arrow Articles by Berland, Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?