Skip Navigation



NDT Advance Access published online on January 3, 2008
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm785
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/4/1241    most recent
gfm785v1
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kimmel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Alscher, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kimmel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Alscher, D. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Improved Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate by Serum Cystatin C in Preventing Contrast Induced Nephropathy by N-Acetylcysteine or Zinc-Preliminary Results

Martin Kimmel1, Moritz Butscheid2, Stefanie Brenner2, Ulrich Kuhlmann1, Ulrich Klotz2 and Dominik Mark Alscher1

1 Department of General Internal Medicine and Nephrology, Robert Bosch Hospital Germany 2 Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Martin Kimmel, Robert Bosch Hospital, Auerbachstr, 110, D-70376, Stuttgart, Germany. Tel: +49-711-8101-5722; Fax: +49-711-8101-3792; E-mail: vm.kimmel{at}t-online.de



   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background. Prevention of contrast media (CM) induced nephropathy (CIN) by prophylaxis (e.g. N-acetylcysteine; NAC) is controversially discussed. Up to now, assessment of kidney function has been based on measurements of serum creatinine, although this biomarker has several limitations. We investigated NAC and zinc (Zn) for the prevention of CIN by monitoring creatinine and cystatin C.

Methods. In a prospective, placebo-controlled, double blind trial, patients with moderately impaired kidney function receiving low-osmolar, non-ionic CM were randomly assigned to an oral treatment for 2 days with 1.2 g/day of NAC (n = 19), for 1 day with 60 mg/day of Zn (n = 18) or placebo (n = 17). All patients received peri-procedurally 1 ml/kg/h of 0.45% saline for 24 h. At baseline, prior to exposure of CM, 2 and 6 days after CM, creatinine and cystatin C were measured.

Results. There was no difference in the incidence of CIN, but a significant drop in creatinine (P < 0.05) was observed in all patients during volume expansion. Creatinine showed no increase after CM and it was normalized to the baseline values in all groups at the study end. In contrast, 2 days after CM there was a significant rise in cystatin C in the Zn (P = 0.012) and the placebo (P = 0.041) group, whereas NAC prevented this deterioration of kidney function.

Conclusions. Cystatin C seems to reflect CM-induced changes in kidney function better than creatinine. NAC and Zn have no effect in preventing CIN by the standard definition, but based on cystatin C we can confirm a preventive effect of NAC. It appears mandatory to assess kidney function by cystatin C in CIN intervention trials, because relying on creatinine can be misleading.

Keywords: contrast-induced nephropathy; cystatin C; NAC; volume expansion; zinc



   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Approximately 80 million doses of iodinated contrast media (CM) were prescribed worldwide in 2003, making CM amongst the most commonly used medications in the history of medicine [1]. The value of these agents is unquestioned, but they are an important cause of acute kidney injury (rise in serum creatinine ≥ 0.5 mg/dl or ≥ 25%) [2]. Indeed, contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is one of the most common forms of acute kidney injury, and the third most frequent cause of hospital acquired renal failure. The incidence of CIN, which is 0.6 to 2.3% in the general population and higher in patients with cardiovascular disease, has a high associated mortality rate, e.g. as high as 34% in some reports [2–4]. Moreover, even a small deterioration of kidney function can increase mortality [5–7]. It is important therefore to detect changes of renal function after administration of CM and to develop strategies for prevention.

A change in serum creatinine concentration is the accepted method for detecting changes of renal function in patients receiving CM. As a breakdown product of muscle, however, serum creatinine concentration is influenced by a variety of non-renal factors, including body weight, nutritional status, race, age and gender. Furthermore, creatinine is insensitive for detecting reductions in kidney function, which may deteriorate more than 50% before serum creatinine exceeds the normal range [8,9]. A recent study questioned, in fact, whether possible renoprotective effects of N-acetylcysteine (NAC), in patients receiving CM, could be assessed at all by measuring serum creatinine [10]. Cystatin C is another surrogate for GFR and cystatin C may be superior to creatinine as a marker for GFR, be a more accurate measure of drug-induced changes in renal function and have particular advantages in the elderly because concentrations in blood are not influenced by age, gender or muscle mass [11–14].

In order to clarify the relative importance of cystatin C in the monitoring of renal function in studies regarding the controversial issue of pharmacological prevention (e.g. by NAC) of CIN, we performed a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind trial in patients with mild to moderately impaired kidney function, receiving CM for coronary angiography, and we assessed GFR by measuring concomitantly serum levels of creatinine and cystatin C.



   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study population
Between March 2004 and March 2006, patients with mild to moderately impaired kidney function undergoing coronary angiography were screened in our Department of Internal Medicine with the following inclusion criteria: (1) older than 18 years of age, (2) serum creatinine ≥ 1.2 mg/dl or a creatinine clearance < 50 ml/min (measured by a 12- or 24-h urine collection). Exclusion criteria were: (1) acute inflammatory disease, (2) medication with NSAID or metformin up to 3 days before entering study, (3) abnormal findings in physical examinations, e.g. signs of dehydration or inflammation.

The local ethics committee and regulating government authorities approved the study and we registered the study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00399256 [ClinicalTrials.gov] ). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Study protocol
All patients were interviewed and examined at the beginning and the end of the double blind study. Furthermore they were instructed at study entry to avoid intake of alcohol, nicotine and caffeine during the study period.

Fifty-eight eligible patients were randomized and 54 were analysed (3 patients in the Zn group discontinued the study because of diarrhoea and 1 patient in the placebo group refused to participate without giving any reason). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either orally NAC (600 mg twice daily; n = 19) on the day before (d-1) and the day of injection of CM (d0); Zn (60 mg once daily; n = 18) on d-1 or placebo (n = 17) for 2 days. Every patient took the same amount of specially prepared capsules two times daily, so the patients received matching placebos to fill up the dosing points. All patients received a peri-procedural intravenous infusion (‘volume expansion’) of 1 ml/kg/h with 0.45% saline for 24 h (12 h before and 12 h after exposure to CM). A non-ionic low-osmolar contrast medium (Iomeperole 350, Altana Pharma AG, Konstanz, Germany) was used in all patients.

Serum levels of creatinine were measured enzymatically and GFR was estimated by the MDRD formula (male: GFR = 186 x (serum creatinine)–1.154 x (age)–0.203; female: GFR = 186 x (serum creatinine)–1.154 x (age)–0.203 x 0.742). Serum cystatin C was measured by nephelometry and GFR was estimated by GFR = 74.835/(serum cystatin C)1.333 [15].

Study end-points
The primary outcome measure was development of CIN and the prevention by Zn or NAC. According to the literature CIN was defined as a ≥25% or ≥0.5 mg/dl increase in serum creatinine.

The secondary outcome was the difference of creatinine and cystatin C in the three groups.

Statistical analysis
The sample size estimation is based on the study of Durham et al. with a mean serum creatinine of 2.4 mg/dl and a standard deviation of 0.5 mg/dl [16]. To detect a >20% difference in serum creatinine with a power of >95% and an Alpha of 0.01 this resulted in 40 patients for each group.

The randomization scheme was generated by using the web site www.randomization.com.

To test for the difference in the clinical characteristics and their distributions between the three groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test and Fisher's exact test were applied. To investigate the time course of the two kidney function tests (creatinine and cystatin C) in each treatment group, a non-linear mixed effects regression model was used, which allows us to account for the longitudinal nature of the data [17]. P-values <0.05 were considered as significant. Statistical computations were carried out with the statistical package R together with the R-library nlme for mixed effects models (www.r-project.org).

Study termination
Midway through accumulation of the planned number of study patients there was an interim analysis which showed increased episodes of diarrhoea in the Zn group. Furthermore there were no changes in creatinine after CM exposure. Although there were no prospectively established stopping rules the study was halted after the clinical concern of exposure in the Zn group to the increased risk of diarrhoea.



   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Characteristics of the patients included in the trial have been summarized in Table 1. The three groups were comparable concerning distribution of sex, body weight, age, diabetes, coronary artery disease, baseline renal function tests (creatinine, estimated GFR-MDRD, cystatin C, estimated GFR by cystatin C, urea) and volume of CM. All patients exhibited a mild to moderate impairment of kidney function (mostly chronic kidney disease in stage 3). There were no differences in routine laboratory values (haemoglobin, glucose, HbA1c, CRP, ESR).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Patients characteristics: (mean ± SD)

 
Between the three groups there was no significant difference in the incidence of CIN on Day 2, after exposure to CM based on standard definitions. Rise in creatinine of ≥ 0.5 mg/dl: n = 1, 1 and 2 in placebo-, NAC- and Zn-group. A rise in creatinine ≥ 25%: n = 2, 1 and 3 in placebo-, NAC- and Zn-group. In Figure 1 the time- and treatment-dependent values of serum creatinine and cystatin C are illustrated. Three different results in the time pattern of both assessments are obvious:
1 There is a significant drop in serum creatinine in all three groups by volume expansion when comparing d-1 to d0: placebo: P = 0.046, NAC: P = 0.0071, Zn: P = 0.0095.
2 If all patients are analysed together there is a significant (P = 0.008) increase of serum cystatin C on d2 after exposure to CM compared to baseline (d-1). In the subgroup analysis this rise is significant for Zn (P = 0.012) and placebo (P = 0.041) but not in the NAC group.
3 There is no significant deterioration in either kidney function tests (serum creatinine and serum cystatin C) in all groups between baseline (d-1) and at the study end (d-6) as shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 Serum creatinine (mean ± SD) and serum cystatin C (mean ± SD) before volume expansion (d-1), before exposure to contrast media (d0), on Day 2 (d2) and Day 6 (d6) after injection of contrast media

 
No dose effect (volume of CM) on the deterioration of either kidney function tests could be observed.



   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Our randomized, placebo-controlled trial is the first attempt to prove the therapeutic benefit of NAC and Zn by monitoring concomitantly two independent serum markers of GFR (cystatin C and creatinine). In the primary outcome measure of this study, NAC and Zn have no effect in preventing CIN by the standard definition—but in the secondary outcome measure NAC prevents small increases of cystatin C. The major finding is that determination of serum creatinine is of limited value in assessing the renoprotective potential of a prophylactic intervention and serum cystatin C seems to be the more reliable parameter for estimating GFR.

Numerous controlled studies have been performed with NAC and based on more recent meta-analysis, it appears that this drug has some minor, probably dose-dependent renoprotective effect [18–25]. In all these interventional studies, the claimed renoprotective potential was solely based on measurements of serum creatinine. This is somewhat surprising as there is an ongoing discussion on the limitations of this surrogate parameter of kidney function: the ongoing discussion of interference in creatinine determination by NAC and inaccuracy of serum creatinine in reflecting GFR [8–10]. A more reliable marker of GFR is represented by cystatin C and it has been proposed to include serum level monitoring of cystatin C when assessing kidney function in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization [11–14,26–28]. The time course of cystatin C in CIN has recently been described, and it appears to be advisable to monitor cystatin C in studies when assessing the renoprotective potential of a prophylactic intervention [10,29]. With this novel approach, some more definite answers might be generated in the controversial issue of the therapeutic value of NAC in preventing CIN.

The exact underlying pathophysiology of CIN is still unknown and most likely several factors, including vasoconstriction resulting in medullar ischaemia, direct contrast media effects on renal tubular cells and toxic damage caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) act in concert to cause CIN [30]. As ROS seems to play a crucial role in the pathogenesis it is not surprising that agents with antioxidant properties (e.g. NAC) have been employed for preventing CIN. For this reason we have included Zn in our placebo-controlled, comparative trial, as this agent has the potential to act as an ‘endogenous’ antioxidant via increasing metallothionein [31].

In our study low-osmolar and not iso-osmolar (the most ‘modern’) CM, as would be recommended based on the small NEPHRIC (Nephrotoxicity in High-risk Patients) study in such a high-risk patient population, was used [32]. However, several recently published trials comparing iso-osmolar and low-osmolar CM have not been able to confirm these results [33–35].

The results of this study indicate that determination of serum creatinine is of limited value in assessing unequivocally the renoprotective potential of a drug. Based on these measurements (Figure 1) we were able to observe a significant drop of serum creatinine in all three groups after volume expansion before CM exposure. This represents most probably a temporary increase in GFR, and does not necessarily translate into alterations of cystatin C because the kinetics of this marker are slower. The reduction of serum creatinine is of special interest because CIN is defined by an increase in creatinine in relation to baseline serum creatinine, which is measured either before volume expansion or before CM exposure. It is important to verify these two different time points for the correct interpretation of the results in such trials.

In contrast to creatinine, the results of cystatin C are in good agreement with the expected time pattern of kidney injury: CM induced a transient impairment in GFR in a more sensitive way than measurable by creatinine. Prophylactic treatment with placebo or Zn resulted in a deterioration of kidney function (≤ 25%) on Day 2, which is completely reversible after 6 days, but prophylactic treatment with NAC could prevent this small but significant (P < 0.05) increase in cystatin C, as levels of cystatin C remained relatively stable during the entire monitored time period. This indicates that basal kidney function was maintained despite exposure to CM by NAC.

The study was terminated midway because of an increased incidence of diarrhoea in the Zn group, a well known, but not as serious expected side effect of Zn. Because of small patient numbers with a limited power our data are preliminary and cannot prove the benefit of one of the interventions. Focussing on cystatin C our results, even if generated from small groups of patients, confirm that NAC has some value for the prevention of acute kidney injury. It has been shown by several authors that even small changes in deterioration of kidney function can have an impact on mortality [5,6]. This has been confirmed recently in a large database of 27 608 patients with exposure to CM during coronary angiography [7]. Therefore the prevention of small changes in kidney function as seen in our study with cystatin C and NAC could be important. Furthermore, we think that the present definition of CIN (based on changes of serum creatinine) needs to be re-evaluated and discussed.

In conclusion, we recommend the prophylactic use of NAC and prefer cystatin C as the more reliable parameter for estimating GFR. Guidelines based solely on measurements of serum creatinine might have some limited impact for the tested therapeutic regimens in preventing CIN.



   Acknowledgments
 
This study was supported by the Robert Bosch Foundation Stuttgart, Germany. We thank U. Sechtem and his co-workers (Department of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany) for the support in the practical part of the study, J. Dippon (Department of Mathematics, Universität Stuttgart, Germany) for the statistical analysis, F. Epstein (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA) and D. Zakim (University of California San Francisco, USA) for helpful discussion, K. Niederstrasser and D. Biegger for clinical and laboratory assistance. Secretarial help of S. Verhagen and U. Hengemühle are highly appreciated.

Conflict of interest statement: None declared.



   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Katzberg RW, Haller C. Contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: clinical landscape. Kidney Int Supp (2006) 69:S3–S7.[CrossRef]
  2. Mehran R, Nikolsky E. Contrast-induced nephropathy: definition, epidemiology, and patients at risk. Kidney Int Suppl (2006) 69:S11–S15.[CrossRef]
  3. Nash K, Hafeez A, Hou S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis (2002) 39:930–936.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Levy EM, Viscoli CM, Horwitz RI. The effect of acute renal failure on mortality. A cohort analysis. JAMA (1996) 275:1489–1494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Lassnigg A, Schmidlin D, Mouhieddine M, et al. Minimal changes of serum creatinine predict prognosis in patients after cardiothoracic surgery: a prospective cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol (2004) 15:1597–1605.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Chertow GM, Burdick E, Honour M, et al. Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc Nephrol (2005) 16:3365–3370.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Weisbord SD, Chen H, Stone RA, et al. Associations of increases in serum creatinine with mortality and length of hospital stay after coronary angiography. J Am Soc Nephrol (2006) 17:2871–2877.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Perrone RD, Madias NE, Levey AS. Serum creatinine as an index of renal function: new insights into old concepts. Clin Chem (1992) 38:1933–1953.[Abstract]
  9. Stevens LA, Coresh J, Greene T, et al. Assessing kidney function–measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate. N Engl J Med (2006) 354:2473–2483.[Free Full Text]
  10. Hoffmann U, Fischereder M, Kruger B, et al. The value of N-acetyl- cysteine in the prevention of radiocontrast agent-induced nephropathy seems questionable. J Am Soc Nephrol (2004) 15:407–410.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Filler G, Bokenkamp A, Hofmann W, et al. Cystatin C as a marker of GFR–history, indications, and future research. Clin Biochem (2005) 38:1–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Fliser D, Ritz E. Serum cystatin C concentration as a marker of renal dysfunction in the elderly. Am J Kidney Dis (2001) 37:79–83.[Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Dharnidharka VR, Kwon C, Stevens G. Serum cystatin C is superior to serum creatinine as a marker of kidney function: a meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis (2002) 40:221–226.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Ognibene A, Mannucci E, Caldini A, et al. Cystatin C reference values and aging. Clin Biochem (2006) 39:658–661.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E, et al. National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Ann Intern Med (2003) 139:137–147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. 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][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. (2000) New York: Springer. 1–96.
  18. Tepel M, Van Der Giet M, Schwarzfeld C, et al. Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med (2000) 343:180–184.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Tepel M, Aspelin P, Lameire N. Contrast-induced nephropathy: a clinical and evidence-based approach. Circulation (2006) 113:799–1806.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, et al. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med (2006) 166:161–166.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Lameire NH. Contrast-induced nephropathy–prevention and risk reduction. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2006) 21:i11–i23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Tepel M, Van Der Giet M, Statz M, et al. The antioxidant acetylcysteine reduces cardiovascular events in patients with end-stage renal failure: a randomized, controlled trial. Circulation (2003) 107:992–995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Clinical practice. Preventing nephropathy induced by contrast medium. N Engl J Med (2006) 354:379–386.[Free Full Text]
  24. Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Marana I, et al. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy in primary angioplasty. N Engl J Med (2006) 354:2773–2782.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Zagler A, Azadpour M, Mercado C, et al. N-acetylcysteine and contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials. Am Heart J (2006) 151:140–145.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Artunc FH, Fischer IU, Risler T, et al. Improved estimation of GFR by serum cystatin C in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Int J Cardiol (2005) 102:173–178.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Herget-Rosenthal S, Pietruck F, Volbracht L, et al. Serum cystatin C—a superior marker of rapidly reduced glomerular filtration after uninephrectomy in kidney donors compared to creatinine. Clin Nephrol (2005) 64:41–46.[Web of Science][Medline]
  28. Herget-Rosenthal S, Marggraf G, Husing J, et al. Early detection of acute renal failure by serum cystatin C. Kidney Int (2004) 66:1115–1122.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Rickli H, Benou K, Ammann P, et al. Time course of serial cystatin C levels in comparison with serum creatinine after application of radiocontrast media. Clin Nephrol (2004) 61:98–102.[Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Persson PB, Tepel M. Contrast medium-induced nephropathy: the pathophysiology. Kidney Int Suppl (2006) 69:S8–S10.[CrossRef]
  31. Alscher DM, Braun N, Biegger D, et al. Induction of metallo- thionein in proximal tubular cells by zinc and its potential as an endogenous antioxidant. Kidney Blood Press Res (2005) 28:127–133.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson S, et al. Nephrotoxic effects in high- risk patients undergoing angiography. N Engl J Med (2003) 348:491–499.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Barrett B, Thomson H, Katzberg R. Nephrotoxicity of low-osmolar iopamidol vs iso-osmolar iodixanol in renally impaired patients: the IMPACT study. Invest Radiol (2006) 41:815–821.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Jo S, Youn TJ, Koo BW, et al. Renal toxicity evaluation and comparison between visipaque (Iodixanol) and hexabrix (Ioxaglate) in atients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography: the RECOVER study: a randomized controlled trial. JACC (2006) 48:924–930.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Solomon R, Natarajan MK, Doucet S, et al. The CARE (Cardiac Angiography in REnally Impaired Patients) Study: a randomized, double blind trial of contrast-induced nephropathy in high risk patients. Circulation (2007) 115:3189–3196.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Received for publication: 20. 6.07
Accepted in revised form: 8.10.07


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
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
G. Gambaro, M. S. Graziani, and F. Ribichini
Cystatin C and contrast-induced nephropathy
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 4079 - 4079.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
M. Kimmel and D. M. Alscher
Reply
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 4079 - 4080.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
S.-H. Jo, B.-K. Koo, T.-J. Youn, and H.-S. Kim
Conclusion of recent 'osmolality trials' in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy by NAC--what is the standard?
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 1, 2008; 23(7): 2424 - 2424.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
M. Kimmel and D. M. Alscher
Reply
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 1, 2008; 23(7): 2424 - 2425.
[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:
23/4/1241    most recent
gfm785v1
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kimmel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Alscher, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kimmel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Alscher, D. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?