You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Education in Heart
Invasive imaging, cardiac catheterisation and angiography
Contrast-induced nephropathy following angiography and cardiac interventions
  1. Roger Rear1,
  2. Robert M Bell1,
  3. Derek J Hausenloy1,2,3,4
  1. 1The Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2The National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
  3. 3National Heart Research Institute Singapore, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
  4. 4Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders Program, Duke-National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
  1. Correspondence to Professor Derek Hausenloy, The Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Hospital & Medical School, 67 Chenies Mews, London WC1E 6HX, UK; d.hausenloy{at}ucl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306962

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    European Society of Cardiology (ESC) curriculum section and guidelines referenced

    • 2.4 Invasive imaging: cardiac catheterisation and angiography.

    • ESC: updated contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) prevention guidelines 2014.

    • European Society of Urogenital Radiology: updated contrast media safety committee guidelines 2011.

    Learning objectives

    • Define CIN and recognise this as a common and serious complication in susceptible patients receiving intravascular contrast media.

    • Understand the possible pathological mechanisms underlying CIN.

    • Describe the clinical and periprocedural risk factors for CIN and perform a risk assessment for patients receiving contrast media.

    • Appreciate the established strategies used to prevent CIN and be aware of novel therapies.

    • Recognise the onset of CIN and manage this complication appropriately.

    Introduction

    Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), also known as contrast-induced acute kidney injury, is an iatrogenic renal injury that follows intravascular administration of radio-opaque contrast media (CM) in susceptible individuals. CIN was first described during the 1950s in case reports of fatal acute renal failure that had occurred following intravenous pyelography in patients with renal disease arising from multiple myeloma.1 ,2 Despite technological advances, CIN remains responsible for a third of all hospital-acquired acute kidney injury (AKI)3 ,4 and affects between 1% and 2% of the general population and up to 50% of high-risk subgroups following coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).5

    The proliferation of imaging methods and interventional procedures involving administration of intravascular CM in both non-cardiac modalities (eg, vascular CT angiography and interventional vascular angiography) and in established (eg, CA and PCI) and emerging cardiac modalities (eg, CT coronary angiography (CTCA) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)) has significantly increased the number of patients exposed to CM and thus the number at risk of CIN. The widespread adoption of primary PCI for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), despite significantly improving cardiovascular outcomes, has increased the incidence of CIN due to the inherent difficulties in rapidly assessing CIN risk, instigating prophylactic measures, attendant haemodynamic compromise and higher contrast volumes, all known risk factors for the development of CIN.6 Despite several therapeutic approaches, the rising age and incidence of comorbidity within the broad cohort of cardiac patients receiving CM has ensured that the prevention of CIN remains a significant clinical challenge.7

    As will be discussed in the following sections, the estimated risk of an individual developing CIN can be calculated using known pre-existent clinical and periprocedural factors, which are consistent with the proposed pathological mechanisms of CIN. Pre-existent stage III chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 for greater than 3 months, is the most commonly identified risk factor for CIN; however, CIN can occur in the absence of underlying CKD if a number of other risk factors are also present.5 Risk scoring systems have been developed from cohort studies8 ,9 that have enabled clinicians to predict the likelihood of CIN occurrence and have allowed targeted use of preventative therapies. The wholly iatrogenic and predictable nature of CIN makes it a particularly well-suited area for ongoing cardiovascular and nephrology research, with focus on pathophysiological mechanisms as well as novel risk assessment, preventative, diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

    Definition and diagnostic criteria of CIN

    The generally accepted definition of CIN is a 25% relative increase, or a 0.5 mg/dL (44 µmol/L) absolute increase, in serum creatinine (SCr) within 72 h of contrast exposure, in the absence of an alternative explanation.10 Criticisms of this definition include the lack of sensitivity to minor increases in SCr that have been shown to correlate with adverse events,11 ,12 the combination of both relative and absolute SCr changes and the absence of any functional assessment such as changes in urine output, as used in the RIFLE,13 AKIN14 and KDIGO15 classification systems. However, this definition has the advantage of being widely used as the end point in most CIN studies and it correlates well with adverse clinical end points.

    An alternative definition proposed by Harjai et al16 aims to classify CIN according to three grades corresponding to three relative and absolute creatinine rise cut-offs, including a group with only minor rise (<25% or 0.5 mg/dL), which also correlates with long-term adverse outcomes (table 1).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    CIN severity grading system (adapted from Harjai el al16)

    A significant problem with SCr is that it is relatively insensitive to the rapid GFR changes seen in AKI, particularly in patients with normal baseline renal function.17 Elevations in SCr typically take 2–3 days to reach the current diagnostic threshold following an acute renal insult, thus reducing its usefulness as a marker of AKI. However early and minor incremental changes in SCr may be a useful marker of CIN; a recent clinical trial performed by Ribichini et al,18 which included 216 at-risk patients undergoing CA, demonstrated that at 12 h a 5% increase in SCr from baseline was a sensitive (75%) and specific (72%) marker of CIN at 48 h and persistent worsening of renal function at 30 days.

    Several novel renal biomarkers, including NGAL,19 Cystatin C,20 urinary Kim-121 and interleukin-1822 have been proposed to specifically detect CIN within minutes to hours of the renal insult. Unfortunately, to date, these biomarkers have yet to progress beyond the realms of clinical research; there is a clear clinical need for large trial validation of their use in the early detection and intervention in AKI.

    Adverse outcomes following CIN

    CIN is often regarded in clinical practice as a transient event; in up to 80% of cases, SCr levels normalise after approximately 1–3 weeks.23 However, CIN is of clinical importance as a number of clinical trials have revealed that it portends a multitude of short-term and long-term adverse events.24 After adjusting for comorbidities, observational studies have demonstrated that in-hospital mortality is approximately five times higher in patients who suffer CIN compared with patients receiving CM who do not,25 and mortality rates at 1 and 5 years are approximately four times higher,26 with some demonstrating a 1-year mortality rates of between 20%12 and 38%.27 In other observational studies, as many as 20% of those developing CIN suffer persistent worsening renal function after CM exposure,28 with renal replacement therapy occurring in between 0.7%25 and 7%27 of patients with CIN (table 2). As such the additional healthcare costs associated with CIN are thought to be considerable.12

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Cardiovascular adverse outcomes following CIN

    However, it is important to recognise that a direct causal relationship between CIN and mortality has not been established in these observational studies. The onset of CIN is more likely to occur in the presence of severe cardiac injury or disease, which alone conveys a poor prognosis. As such CIN may be a marker of adverse cardiovascular outcomes rather than an independent risk factor. A recent meta-analysis by James et al,29 reviewed 39 observational studies that investigated cardiovascular outcomes in those with CIN and demonstrated an increased risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, renal failure and prolonged hospitalisation. However, it was found that baseline clinical characteristics that simultaneously predispose to both CIN and mortality were strong confounders, especially so in unadjusted studies. Even with appropriate adjustment for comorbidity, the authors recommend that any firm conclusions about causality should be interpreted with caution.

    Nonetheless, a number of plausible pathological mechanisms exist that might explain a direct link between CIN and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In the short term these include acute volume overload, electrolyte disturbance, uraemia or haemodialysis (HD) in cases of severe CIN. Longer term MACE in those who suffer persistent renal injuries may be increased secondary to the cardiovascular risk associated with progressive CKD and its many pathological manifestations, including accelerated atherosclerosis, vascular calcification and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy.30 However, it is less conceivable how minor or transient changes in kidney function might increase MACE risk.

    In order to demonstrate a definite causal link between CIN and MACE, large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to demonstrate that effective CIN prevention strategies are also able to reduce short-term and long-term MACE, specifically using therapies that offer no additional cardiovascular risk reduction benefits. Given the similarities that exist between renal and cardiovascular disease and their respective treatments, this is unlikely to be feasible. In view of the many complex confounders associated with MACE, CIN clinical trials that focus exclusively on clinically important renal outcomes, such as persistent worsening of renal function, new onset proteinuria and progression to end-stage renal failure (ESRF), may to some degree circumvent any spurious relationship that is seen with MACE correlates.

    Despite the lack of evidence supporting any direct causality effect on MACE, the onset of CIN following cardiac procedures remains an ominous event which should prompt additional clinical vigilance and early intervention.

    Proposed mechanisms underlying CIN

    Intravascular CM are concentrated tri-iodinated benzene compounds that are radio-opaque as a result of their associated iodine moieties. All CM agents are cytotoxic and this may be compounded by the ionic strength, osmolality or viscosity of each specific agent.31 Ionic ‘hyper-osmolar’ solutions were the first to be used; however, these agents were found to be highly nephrotoxic and are now rarely administered.32 As such safer agents, including non-ionic ‘low-osmolar’ (LOCM) or ‘iso-osmolar’ (IOCM) solutions were developed. These formulations are significantly more viscous than blood plasma, with viscosity inversely related to osmolality33 (table 3). These two physicochemical properties of CM are thought to be implicated in the pathogenesis of CIN in addition to direct vasoactive and cytotoxic effects.34

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Comparison of CM agents by osmolality and viscosity

    The kidney is particularly vulnerable to ischaemic injury as it is subjected to high metabolic and osmotic stress and it is supplied by an intricate microvascular circulation susceptible to local and systemic hypoperfusion. This is most evident in the outer medullary region of the kidney where oxygen requirements are high due to active sodium resorption in the ascending loop of Henle and the partial pressure of oxygen is low at approximately 20 mmHg.35 This relative ischaemia is related to the delicate blood supply provided for by the descending vasa recta (DVR), which is a long and narrow diameter vessel with high vascular resistance, and which may be further compounded by arteriovenous shunting.36 Patients with CKD are at an additional risk of renal ischaemia due to the increased metabolic demands placed on a reduced nephron bed which is often coupled with a compromised microvascular and macrovascular circulation.37

    Although understanding of the complex pathogenesis of CIN is incomplete, the primary model identifies ischaemia in the vulnerable outer medullary region of the kidney as being pivotal.36 Following intravascular administration of CM, a prolonged period of renal vasoconstriction occurs due to an imbalance of local vasoactive mediators, such as nitrous oxide,38 adenosine, endothelin,39 prostaglandin and reactive oxygen species (ROS)40 which are released by the vascular endothelium in direct response to CM cytotoxicity. The resulting ischaemic tissue releases further noxious vasoactive mediators including ROS, thus prolonging the duration of vasoconstriction.

    The increased viscosity of the admixture of CM and blood plasma within the DVR results in a further reduction in medullary blood flow41 and the hyperosmolality of CM in plasma has been shown to cause red cell distortion and aggregation which may also contribute to reduced perfusion due to capillary obstruction.42 As CM is filtered and concentrated within the tubules, the resulting increase in viscosity causes tubular obstruction which, coupled with ROS release, induces an acute tubular injury.43 Thus, the combination of cytotoxicity, vasoconstriction and viscosity present a potent combination for the induction of medullary ischaemia/reperfusion injury (figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Pathophysiological mechanism underlying CIN is shown. CIN, contrast-induced nephropathy; NO, nitric oxide, ROS, reactive oxygen species. Adapted from Seeliger et al.89

    The risk of CIN is increased in elderly patients and those with diabetes or CKD, which may be due to the presence of endothelial dysfunction and an exaggerated vasoconstrictive response to CM.44 Equally, patients with poor pre-renal perfusion, such as those with congestive cardiac failure (CCF), renovascular disease or intravascular volume depletion, are also at increased risk of CIN due to the deleterious effect of renal vasoconstriction coupled with low preload. As observed in clinical studies, the presence of anaemia and thus reduced oxygen carrying capacity of blood would be expected to worsen ischaemia in the outer medullary region of the kidney.45

    Risk factors and risk assessment

    In order to reduce the chance of CIN occurrence it is important to review the risk factors and indications for CM administration prior to any CM procedure. Most CIN risk factors can be assessed from the clinical history, physical examination and common laboratory investigations. Further risk factors may become apparent periprocedurally.

    Pre-existent CKD is probably the most important pre-procedural risk factor for CIN. The European Society of Urogenital Radiology Consensus Working Panel46 in 1999 stated that CIN risk becomes clinically significant when baseline SCr concentration is ≥1.3 mg/dL (≥115 mmol/L) in men and ≥1.0 mg/dL (≥88.4 mmol/L) in women. These figures approximate to an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, which defines CKD stages 3–5 and which is now generally recognised as the threshold for CIN risk.47 This simple biochemical assessment is the most widely adopted screening tool; however, it is important to recognise that SCr is an insensitive measure of renal function and that other risk factors are highly contributory to CIN, which can occur in patients without pre-existent CKD.5

    Based on clinical experience, dehydration is a major risk factor for CIN; however, as it is largely a clinical diagnosis and is challenging to quantify, it has never been formally investigated in clinical trials. Hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure of <80 mm Hg for more than 60 min, is a recognised risk factor for CIN, attributable to intravascular volume depletion (eg, severe dehydration, haemorrhage or sepsis), cardiogenic shock (eg, AMI) or excessive vasodilation (eg, anaphylaxis) which results in renal hypoperfusion and thus increased sensitivity to CM-induced renal ischaemia. The presence of CCF classified according to New York Heart Failure Association III or IV, a recent history of pulmonary oedema,9 AMI,6 or LV ejection fraction of less than 45% have all been shown to be independent risk factors.48 ,49 Diabetes mellitus is also an independent CIN risk factor as demonstrated in a number of clinical trials,9 ,48 especially so when coexistent with CKD.50 Advanced age, usually quantified as over 75 years,9 is also associated with CIN. Anaemia is another important risk factor, usually defined as a haematocrit (HCT) of less than 0.39 in males or 0.36 in females.45 The coadministration of nephrotoxic agents (see table 6), are thought to increase the risk of CIN, although this is not well documented in clinical studies.51 There is conflicting evidence regarding the risk of concurrent treatment with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blocker’s (ARB's), however if part of established therapy, continuation is considered safer than the risk of withdrawal.47

    Procedural factors such as the total volume of CM9 (>350 mL or >4 mL/kg) and previous CM exposure within 72 h8 are directly related to the development of CIN. A specific method for quantifying the maximum safe volume of contrast has been proposed by Laskey et al52 who demonstrated that a ratio of the volume of contrast media to creatinine clearance (V/CrCl) greater than 3.7:1 correlates strongly with the risk of developing CIN in patients with moderate CKD undergoing CA. In addition, the presence of periprocedural haemodynamic instability requiring the use of inotropic agents or intra-arterial balloon pump9 therapy is particularly high-risk feature. A number of these risk factors have been integrated into a well-known post-procedure risk scoring system and validated in a large cohort study by Mehran et al9 (table 4).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    The Mehran risk score for the prediction of CIN9

    A similar scoring system has also been proposed by Tziakas et al53 who found that pre-existing renal disease, metformin use, history of previous PCI, peripheral arterial disease and ≥300 mL of contrast volume were also independent predictors of CIN. A limitation of these scoring systems is that calculation is only possible after CM has been administered. However, it is clinically desirable to be able to predict the risk of CIN before the patient is exposed to CM allowing appropriate precautionary measures to be taken. Such a pre-procedural CIN risk score has been proposed by Maioli et al,8 following validation in a prospective cohort study (table 5).

    View this table:
    Table 5

    A pre-procedural risk score for CIN (adapted from Maioli et al8)

    A number of other novel CIN risk factors have been identified, including pre-procedure glucose levels54 ,55 and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol;56 however, these have yet to be integrated into risk scoring systems. It may be possible to use commonly used cardiovascular risk scoring methods to approximate CIN risk, for example, a Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score of >140 in patients with AMI having normal baseline renal function has been shown to predict risk of CIN in a small cohort study.57 A novel fluid status assessment method using Bio-Impedance Vector Analysis has also been demonstrated to independently predict CIN58 in a small clinical trial; however, it has not yet been translated into a CIN risk scoring system or guided volume repletion strategy.

    Established preventative measures

    In 2014, the European Society of Cardiology published updated guidelines on CIN59 prevention which provides a framework for the use of the following evidence-based strategies (figure 2 and table 6). For all patients referred for CM procedures, a CIN risk assessment should be performed which includes baseline measurement of SCr and calculation of eGFR using a suitable formula, for example, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease or Chronic Kidney Disease–Epidemiology. If patients are identified as being at risk of CIN, particularly if eGFR is <40 mL/min, clinical indications for the CM procedure should be reviewed and preventative measures instigated. A single invasive approach should ideally be adopted, with CA followed by ad hoc PCI to reduce the risk of atheroembolic complications while minimising contrast volumes to <4 mL/kg or V/CrCl <3.7:1. However if a second CM procedure is necessitated, it is advisable to delay until adequate clearance of CM and recovery from any renal injury has occurred, which may be up to 2 weeks or as long as is clinically acceptable. It should be acknowledged that due to the overlap of common risk factors, patients at risk for CIN are also at significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events and therefore should not be excluded or unnecessarily delayed from receiving prognostic CM procedures unless the risks are considered to be excessive.

    View this table:
    Table 6

    European Society of Cardiology CIN prevention guidelines, 2014

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Algorithm for the prevention of CIN is shown. AKI, acute kidney injury; BP, blood pressure; CHF, chronic heart failure; CIN, contrast-induced nephropathy; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; IOCM, iso-osmolar contrast medium; LOCM, low-osmolar contrast medium; MI, myocardial infarction; NaCl, sodium chloride; NaHCO3−, sodium bicarbonate; Scr, serum creatinine; V/CrCl, volume of contrast media to creatinine clearance.

    Patients should be advised to stop all non-essential nephrotoxic medications (table 7) for 24 h prior to and for 48 h following the CM procedure pending SCr measurement. It is also recommended that patients receiving intra-arterial CM with an eGFR of <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, or those receiving intravenous CM with an eGFR of <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, discontinue metformin for 48 h prior to CM exposure and restart once a 48 h SCr measurement excludes CIN. This is to mitigate the risk of lactic acidosis due to reduced renal clearance of metformin that may occur following a potential CIN episode, rather than metformin nephrotoxicity per se.

    View this table:
    Table 7

    Nephrotoxic medications requiring withdrawal 24 h pre-procedure

    Recent studies have investigated whether IOCM formulations, which are thought to induce less osmotic stress despite generally having higher viscosity, are preferable over LOCM. A number of meta-analyses have been performed, some of which suggest the superiority of IOCM; however, others have shown no benefit.60 ,61 The current guidelines recommend the use of either IOCM or LOCM, although a preference for IOCM is reasonable, with the more important proviso that the minimum amount of CM required for diagnostic accuracy is used. During CA or PCI, the use of biplane imaging by experienced operators may reduce the amount of contrast required as simultaneous orthogonal views can be acquired following each CM injection.62

    The most effective prophylactic intervention is provision of adequate hydration prior to CM exposure. Supplementing intravascular volume ensures renal blood flow is maintained and acts to dilute CM in both blood plasma and tubular filtrate. In lower risk ambulant patients, the oral route may be appropriate if adequate fluid intake is assured. However, in moderate/higher risk or in hospitalised patients intravenous hydration with a crystalloid fluid is preferred over oral hydration as it guarantees delivery of appropriate fluid volumes and has been demonstrated as superior in clinical trials.63 The choice of which crystalloid to use is, however, less clear; when compared with isotonic (normal) saline (0.9%), intravenous sodium bicarbonate (1.26%) may have additional ROS scavenging properties mediated through urine alkalinisation64 and lacks chloride ions that are thought to exacerbate renal vasoconstriction.65 Two recent meta-analyses have demonstrated a modest reduction in CIN when using intravenous sodium bicarbonate 1.26% as compared with isotonic saline,66 ,67 although no significant mortality benefit has been demonstrated. In view of the current lack of evidence supporting the use of sodium bicarbonate 1.26% and with some studies offering conflicting evidence,68 the current ESC guidelines recommend pre-hydration with sodium chloride 0.9% at 1–1.5 mL/kg/h for 12 h pre-procedure and up to 24 h post procedure. For elective day case patients and for those with CCF in whom large volumes of intravenous fluid may provoke pulmonary oedema,69 it is also reasonable to use an alternative protocol delivering a shorter duration and volume of sodium chloride 0.9% (table 8).

    View this table:
    Table 8

    Intravenous pre-hydration regimes, Updated ESUR guidelines 201147

    All patients determined as being at risk of CIN should have SCr levels measured between 48 and 72 h following CM exposure. If CIN is diagnosed, then it should be managed using recommended AKI guidelines, such as the recent European Best Practice position statement on AKI.70 This includes follow-up SCr measurements, withdrawal of nephrotoxic medications and unnecessary loop diuretics, electrolyte and hydration optimisation, nutritional advice and, if severe AKI occurs, early hospitalisation with referral to a specialist nephrologist.

    Novel preventative measures

    A number of prophylactic pharmacological agents have been investigated; however, at present the evidence for benefit in CIN prevention is limited. Originally one of the most promising agents, N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), is inexpensive, well tolerated and has both antioxidant and vasodilatory properties. Several large RCTs have shown oral NAC at dose of 600 mg twice a day for 24 h pre-procedure and post procedure reduces the incidence of CIN.71 ,72 However meta-analyses73 ,74 have failed to reach consensus, most likely due to clinical heterogeneity, variable reporting and publication bias in the included studies.75 As such the ESC guidelines recommend that NAC is not to be used alone, although it may be used in addition to standard intravenous hydration regimes.70 More recently high-dose statin therapy (eg, rosuvastatin 40/20 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg or simvastatin 80 mg) has shown efficacy in preventing CIN in statin-naïve patients in several clinical studies76 ,77 and as such is regarded as reasonable preventative therapy in the current ESC guidelines. Other pharmaceutical agents with antioxidant (eg, ascorbic acid) and vasodilatory properties have also been investigated and although some have shown promise, further evaluation is required (table 9).

    View this table:
    Table 9

    Potential pharmacological prophylactic agents

    There has also been considerable interest in novel interventional therapies that may offer additional protection when combined with conventional therapy. These can be characterised into three categories: direct renal protection, hydration optimisation and CM delivery and extraction technologies. The prototypical renal protection approach is exemplified by remote ischaemic preconditioning, which has been shown in many models to be cytoprotective against ischaemia/reperfusion injury, believed to be characteristic of CIN.78 Several small RCTs have shown promise using cycles of brief, non-injurious remote tissue ischaemia to trigger renal protection. Both blood pressure cuff inflation on the upper arm prior to CM exposure (preconditioning)79 and catheter balloon inflation in the target coronary artery following PCI (post-conditioning)80 ,81 have demonstrated a 60%–70% reduction in the incidence of CIN. Although encouraging, larger Phase II/III studies are required to confirm efficacy of this safe and cost–effective intervention.

    Two hydration optimisation strategies have been trialled in CIN: LV end diastolic pressure (LVEDP) guided volume expansion and high urine output matched fluid replacement (RENALGUARD). The optimum rate and volume of intravenous fluid delivery represents a significant challenge: under-hydration increases CIN risk, whereas overhydration may precipitate acute pulmonary oedema in vulnerable patients with severe CKD and CCF. The recent POSEIDON RCT82 demonstrated that LVEDP-guided volume expansion in at-risk patients was safe and significantly reduced the incidence of CIN from 16.3% (28/172) in controls to 6.7% (12/178) in the fluid-guided group. An alternative fluid management system is delivered by the RENALGUARD system, which maintains a high urine output (>300 mL/h) using balanced intravenous isotonic saline (0.9%) delivery and intravenous furosemide infusion (0.25 mg/kg). The REMEDIAL II study83 demonstrated superiority of the RENALGUARD system plus oral NAC in preventing CIN (11%, 16/146) against a control group receiving sodium bicarbonate (1.26%) regimen plus oral NAC (20.5%, 30/146; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92). As such these novel therapies hold promise for higher risk patients especially those who are physiologically unable to tolerate large intravenous fluid volumes.

    In order to minimise CM load, novel automated contrast injection devices have been developed which decrease the volume of CM used and which have been shown to reduce the incidence of CIN.84 It has been proposed that rapid removal of CM from the blood pool may have benefit in preventing CIN; although prophylactic HD has not been shown attenuate the incidence of CIN,85 some benefit has been observed with both pre-procedural and post-procedural86 haemofiltration (HF) and simultaneous HF,87 which may be partially explained through optimisation of periprocedural intravascular volumes. However, HF is a resource-intensive therapy that should be reserved for very-high-risk patients, such as for those with pre-dialysis ESRF88 or those with severe CKD undergoing complex PCI. Direct extraction of CM in coronary venous blood, captured using a coronary sinus catheter, is an interesting experimental intervention89 which has yet to be proven in clinical trials.

    Summary and conclusion

    CIN represents a significant clinical and health economic problem that may be under-recognised through limitations in the currently available biomarkers. Although often a transient injury, CIN may progress to significant persistent renal impairment, ESRF and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. There are a number of recognised risk factors, although the prediction of CIN, particularly prior to contrast administration, remains challenging. Current interventions are largely centred on the avoidance of dehydration, the withdrawal of nephrotoxic agents and minimisation of contrast load, which has limited efficacy in preventing CIN in vulnerable patients. The unmet clinical need in CIN therefore resides in accurate prediction, effective intervention and rapid detection to prevent adverse cardiorenal outcomes. Each of these areas, particularly predictive risk scoring systems, innovative pharmacological and mechanical interventions and novel biomarkers are currently the subject of intensive research and development that may lead to the future development effective strategies to mitigate the risk of CIN.

    You can get CPD/CME credits for Education in Heart

    Education in Heart articles are accredited by both the UK Royal College of Physicians (London) and the European Board for Accreditation in Cardiology—you need to answer the accompanying multiple choice questions (MCQs). To access the questions, click on BMJ Learning: Take this module on BMJ Learning from the content box at the top right and bottom left of the online article. For more information please go to: http://heart.bmj.com/misc/education.dtl

    • RCP credits: Log your activity in your CPD diary online (http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/members/CPDdiary/index.asp)—pass mark is 80%.

    • EBAC credits: Print out and retain the BMJ Learning certificate once you have completed the MCQs—pass mark is 60%. EBAC/ EACCME Credits can now be converted to AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credits and are recognised by all National Accreditation Authorities in Europe (http://www.ebac-cme.org/newsite/?hit=men02).

    Please note: The MCQs are hosted on BMJ Learning—the best available learning website for medical professionals from the BMJ Group. If prompted, subscribers must sign into Heart with their journal's username and password. All users must also complete a one-time registration on BMJ Learning and subsequently log in (with a BMJ Learning username and password) on every visit.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Bartels ED,
      2. Brun GC,
      3. Gammeltoft A, et al
      . Acute anuria following intravenous pyelography in a patient with myelomatosis. Acta Med Scand 1954;150:297–302. doi:10.1111/j.0954-6820.1954.tb18632.x
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Killmann SA,
      2. Gjorup S,
      3. Thaysen JH
      . Fatal acute renal failure following intravenous pyelography in a patient with multiple myeloma. Acta Med Scand 1957;158:43–6. doi:10.1111/j.0954-6820.1957.tb15742.x
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Hou SH,
      2. Bushinsky DA,
      3. Wish JB, et al
      . Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency: a prospective study. Am J Med 1983;74:243–8. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(83)90618-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Nash K,
      2. Hafeez A,
      3. Hou S
      . Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39:930–6. doi:10.1053/ajkd.2002.32766
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Mehran R,
      2. Nikolsky E
      . Contrast-induced nephropathy: definition, epidemiology, and patients at risk. Kidney Int Suppl 2006:S11–15. doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5000368
    6. ↵
      1. Marenzi G,
      2. Lauri G,
      3. Assanelli E, et al
      . Contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1780–5. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.07.043
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Solomon R
      . Contrast-medium-induced acute renal failure. Kidney Int 1998;53:230–42. doi:10.1038/sj.ki.4495510
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Maioli M,
      2. Toso A,
      3. Gallopin M, et al
      . Preprocedural score for risk of contrast-induced nephropathy in elective coronary angiography and intervention. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2010;11:444–9. doi:10.2459/JCM.0b013e328335227c
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Mehran R,
      2. Aymong ED,
      3. Nikolsky E, et al
      . A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1393–9. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.068
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Morcos SK,
      2. Thomsen HS,
      3. Webb JA
      . Contrast-media-induced nephrotoxicity: a consensus report. Contrast media safety committee, European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR). Eur Radiol 1999;9:1602–13. doi:10.1007/s003300050894
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Solomon RJ,
      2. Mehran R,
      3. Natarajan MK, et al
      . Contrast-induced nephropathy and long-term adverse events: cause and effect? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;4:1162–9. doi:10.2215/CJN.00550109
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Weisbord SD,
      2. Chen H,
      3. 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;17:2871–7. doi:10.1681/ASN.2006030301
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Bellomo R,
      2. Ronco C,
      3. Kellum JA, et al
      ., Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative w. Acute renal failure—definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the second international consensus conference of the acute dialysis quality initiative (ADQI) group. Crit Care 2004;8:R204–12. doi:10.1186/cc2872
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Mehta RL,
      2. Kellum JA,
      3. Shah SV, et al
      ., Acute Kidney Injury N. Acute kidney injury network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 2007;11:R31. doi:10.1186/cc5713
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) AKI Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Inter Suppl 2012;2:1–138. doi:10.1038/kisup.2012.1
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    16. ↵
      1. Harjai KJ,
      2. Raizada A,
      3. Shenoy C, et al
      . A comparison of contemporary definitions of contrast nephropathy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and a proposal for a novel nephropathy grading system. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:812–19. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.10.051
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Waikar SS,
      2. Bonventre JV
      . Creatinine kinetics and the definition of acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20:672–9. doi:10.1681/ASN.2008070669
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      1. Ribichini F,
      2. Graziani M,
      3. Gambaro G, et al
      . Early creatinine shifts predict contrast-induced nephropathy and persistent renal damage after angiography. Am J Med 2010;123: 755–63. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.02.026
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Bachorzewska-Gajewska H,
      2. Malyszko J,
      3. Sitniewska E, et al
      . NGAL (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) and cystatin C: are they good predictors of contrast nephropathy after percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable angina and normal serum creatinine? Int J Cardiol 2008;127:290–1. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.04.048
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Briguori C,
      2. Visconti G,
      3. Rivera NV, et al
      . Cystatin c and contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Circulation 2010;121:2117–22. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.919639
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Duan SB,
      2. Liu GL,
      3. Yu ZQ, et al
      . Urinary KIM-1, IL-18 and Cys-c as early predictive biomarkers in gadolinium-based contrast-induced nephropathy in the elderly patients. Clin Nephrol 2013;80:349–54. doi:10.5414/CN107829
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Bulent Gul CB,
      2. Gullulu M,
      3. Oral B, et al
      . Urinary IL-18: a marker of contrast-induced nephropathy following percutaneous coronary intervention? Clin Biochem 2008;41:544–7. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2008.01.002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. McCullough PA,
      2. Sandberg KR
      . Epidemiology of contrast-induced nephropathy. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2003;4(Suppl 5):S3–9.
      OpenUrl
    24. ↵
      1. Finn WF
      . The clinical and renal consequences of contrast-induced nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:i2–10. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl213
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. McCullough PA,
      2. Wolyn R,
      3. Rocher LL, et al
      . Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. Am J Med 1997;103:368–75. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00150-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Levy EM,
      2. Viscoli CM,
      3. Horwitz RI
      . The effect of acute renal failure on mortality. A cohort analysis. JAMA 1996;275:1489–94. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530430033035
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Gruberg L,
      2. Mintz GS,
      3. Mehran R, et al
      . The prognostic implications of further renal function deterioration within 48 h of interventional coronary procedures in patients with pre-existent chronic renal insufficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1542–8. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00917-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Maioli M,
      2. Toso A,
      3. Leoncini M, et al
      . Persistent renal damage after contrast-induced acute kidney injury: Incidence, evolution, risk factors, and prognosis. Circulation 2012;125:3099–107. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.085290
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. James MT,
      2. Samuel SM,
      3. Manning MA, et al
      . Contrast-induced acute kidney injury and risk of adverse clinical outcomes after coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:37–43. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.974493
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. Vanholder R,
      2. Massy Z,
      3. Argiles A, et al
      ., European Uremic Toxin Work G. Chronic kidney disease as cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20:1048–56. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh813
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. ↵
      1. Heinrich MC,
      2. Kuhlmann MK,
      3. Grgic A, et al
      . Cytotoxic effects of ionic high-osmolar, nonionic monomeric, and nonionic iso-osmolar dimeric iodinated contrast media on renal tubular cells in vitro. Radiology 2005;235:843–9. doi:10.1148/radiol.2353040726
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Barrett BJ,
      2. Carlisle EJ
      . Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high- and low-osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology 1993;188:171–8. doi:10.1148/radiology.188.1.8511292
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Pannu N,
      2. Wiebe N,
      3. Tonelli M
      , Alberta Kidney Disease N. Prophylaxis strategies for contrast-induced nephropathy. JAMA 2006;295:2765–79. doi:10.1001/jama.295.23.2765
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Sendeski MM
      . Pathophysiology of renal tissue damage by iodinated contrast media. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2011;38:292–9. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1681.2011.05503.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Brezis M,
      2. Rosen S
      . Hypoxia of the renal medulla—its implications for disease. N Engl J Med 1995;332:647–55. doi:10.1056/NEJM199503093321006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Tumlin J,
      2. Stacul F,
      3. Adam A, et al
      ., Panel CINCW. Pathophysiology of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:14K–20K. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.020
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Pruijm M,
      2. Hofmann L,
      3. Vogt B, et al
      . Renal tissue oxygenation in essential hypertension and chronic kidney disease. Int J Hypertens 2013;2013:696598. doi:10.1155/2013/696598
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Schwartz D,
      2. Blum M,
      3. Peer G, et al
      . Role of nitric oxide (EDRF) in radiocontrast acute renal failure in rats. Am J Physiol 1994;267:F374–9.
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      1. Heyman SN,
      2. Clark BA,
      3. Kaiser N, et al
      . Radiocontrast agents induce endothelin release in vivo and in vitro. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992;3:58–65.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    40. ↵
      1. Heyman SN,
      2. Rosen S,
      3. Khamaisi M, et al
      . Reactive oxygen species and the pathogenesis of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy. Invest Radiol 2010;45:188–95. doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181d2eed8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Seeliger E,
      2. Flemming B,
      3. Wronski T, et al
      . Viscosity of contrast media perturbs renal hemodynamics. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007;18:2912–20. doi:10.1681/ASN.2006111216
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      1. Liss P,
      2. Nygren A,
      3. Olsson U, et al
      . Effects of contrast media and mannitol on renal medullary blood flow and red cell aggregation in the rat kidney. Kidney Int 1996;49:1268–75. doi:10.1038/ki.1996.181
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. Heyman SN,
      2. Rosen S,
      3. Rosenberger C
      . Renal parenchymal hypoxia, hypoxia adaptation, and the pathogenesis of radiocontrast nephropathy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:288–96. doi:10.2215/CJN.02600607
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. ↵
      1. Weisberg LS,
      2. Kurnik PB,
      3. Kurnik BR
      . Risk of radiocontrast nephropathy in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Kidney Int 1994;45:259–65. doi:10.1038/ki.1994.32
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. Nikolsky E,
      2. Mehran R,
      3. Lasic Z, et al
      . Low hematocrit predicts contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary interventions. Kidney Int 2005;67:706–13. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.67131.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. Lameire N,
      2. Adam A,
      3. Becker CR, et al
      ., Panel CINCW. Baseline renal function screening. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:21K–6K. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.021
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    47. ↵
      1. Stacul F,
      2. van der Molen AJ,
      3. Reimer P, et al
      ., Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital R. Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR contrast media safety committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2527–41. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2225-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Rihal CS,
      2. Textor SC,
      3. Grill DE, et al
      . Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2002;105:2259–64. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000016043.87291.33
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    49. ↵
      1. Dangas G,
      2. Iakovou I,
      3. Nikolsky E, et al
      . Contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary interventions in relation to chronic kidney disease and hemodynamic variables. Am J Cardiol 2005;95:13–19. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.08.056
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      1. Parfrey PS,
      2. Griffiths SM,
      3. Barrett BJ, et al
      . Contrast material-induced renal failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both. A prospective controlled study. N Engl J Med 1989;320:143–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM198901193200303
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    51. ↵
      1. McCullough PA
      . Contrast-induced acute kidney injury. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1419–28. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.12.035
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      1. Laskey WK,
      2. Jenkins C,
      3. Selzer F, et al
      . Volume-to-creatinine clearance ratio: a pharmacokinetically based risk factor for prediction of early creatinine increase after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:584–90. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.03.058
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      1. Tziakas D,
      2. Chalikias G,
      3. Stakos D, et al
      . Development of an easily applicable risk score model for contrast-induced nephropathy prediction after percutaneous coronary intervention: a novel approach tailored to current practice. Int J Cardiol 2013;163:46–55. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.05.079
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Stolker JM,
      2. McCullough PA,
      3. Rao S, et al
      . Pre-procedural glucose levels and the risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients undergoing coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1433–40. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.09.072
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Marenzi G,
      2. De Metrio M,
      3. Rubino M, et al
      . Acute hyperglycemia and contrast-induced nephropathy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 2010;160:1170–7. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2010.09.022
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Liu YH,
      2. Liu Y,
      3. Chen JY, et al
      . LDL cholesterol as a novel risk factor for contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Atherosclerosis 2014;237:453–9. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2014.10.022
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Raposeiras-Roubín S,
      2. Aguiar-Souto P,
      3. Barreiro-Pardal C, et al
      . Grace risk score predicts contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and normal renal function. Angiology 2013;64:31–9. doi:10.1177/0003319711434800
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    58. ↵
      1. Maioli M,
      2. Toso A,
      3. Leoncini M, et al
      . Pre-procedural bioimpedance vectorial analysis of fluid status and prediction of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:1387–94. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.01.025
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Windecker S,
      2. Kolh P,
      3. Alfonso F, et al
      ., Authors/Task Force members. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014;35:2541–619. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    60. ↵
      1. McCullough PA,
      2. Bertrand ME,
      3. Brinker JA, et al
      . A meta-analysis of the renal safety of isosmolar iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:692–9. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.02.073
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Reed M,
      2. Meier P,
      3. Tamhane UU, et al
      . The relative renal safety of iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:645–54. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2009.05.002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    62. ↵
      1. Heintzen PH,
      2. Bürsch HJ,
      3. Hahne HJ, et al
      . Assessment of cardiovascular function by digital angiocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;5:150S–7S. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(85)80156-X
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    63. ↵
      1. Trivedi HS,
      2. Moore H,
      3. 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. doi:10.1159/000066641
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Efrati S,
      2. Berman S,
      3. Ilgiyeav I, et al
      . Differential effects of n-acetylcysteine, theophylline or bicarbonate on contrast-induced rat renal vasoconstriction. Am J Nephrol 2009;29:181–91. doi:10.1159/000154471
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    65. ↵
      1. Quilley CP,
      2. Lin YS,
      3. McGiff JC
      . Chloride anion concentration as a determinant of renal vascular responsiveness to vasoconstrictor agents. Br J Pharmacol 1993;108:106–10. doi:10.1111/j.1476-5381.1993.tb13447.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. ↵
      1. Trivedi H,
      2. Nadella R,
      3. Szabo A
      . Hydration with sodium bicarbonate for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nephrol 2010;74:288–96. doi:10.5414/CNP74288
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Meier P,
      2. Ko DT,
      3. Tamura A, et al
      . Sodium bicarbonate-based hydration prevents contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis. BMC Med 2009;7:23. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-23
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Brar SS,
      2. Shen AY,
      3. Jorgensen MB, et al
      . Sodium bicarbonate vs sodium chloride for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography: a randomized trial. JAMA 2008;300:1038–46. doi:10.1001/jama.300.9.1038
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Navaneethan SD,
      2. Singh S,
      3. Appasamy S, et al
      . Sodium bicarbonate therapy for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2009;53:617–27. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.08.033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    70. ↵
      1. Fliser D,
      2. Laville M,
      3. Covic A, et al
      ., ERBP A-HWG. A European renal best practice (ERBP) position statement on the kidney disease improving global outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guidelines on acute kidney injury: part 1: definitions, conservative management and contrast-induced nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transpl 2012;27:4263–72. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfs375
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    71. ↵
      1. Tepel M,
      2. van der Giet M,
      3. Schwarzfeld C, et al
      . Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med 2000;343:180–4. doi:10.1056/NEJM200007203430304
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    72. ↵
      1. Briguori C,
      2. Manganelli F,
      3. Scarpato P, et al
      . Acetylcysteine and contrast agent-associated nephrotoxicity. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:298–303. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01958-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    73. ↵
      1. Gonzales DA,
      2. Norsworthy KJ,
      3. Kern SJ, et al
      . A meta-analysis of n-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity. BMC Med 2007;5:32. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-5-32
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Kelly AM,
      2. Dwamena B,
      3. Cronin P, et al
      . Meta-analysis: effectiveness of drugs for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:284–94. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00007
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. ↵
      1. Biondi-Zoccai GG,
      2. Lotrionte M,
      3. Abbate A, et al
      . Compliance with quorom and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 2006;332:202–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.38693.516782.7C
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    76. ↵
      1. Leoncini M,
      2. Toso A,
      3. Maioli M, et al
      . Early high-dose rosuvastatin for contrast-induced nephropathy prevention in acute coronary syndrome: results from the prato-ACS study (protective effect of rosuvastatin and antiplatelet therapy on contrast-induced acute kidney injury and myocardial damage in patients with acute coronary syndrome). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:71–9. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.105
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    77. ↵
      1. Marenzi G,
      2. Cosentino N,
      3. Werba JP, et al
      . A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on statins for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes. Int J Cardiol 2015;183:47–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.01.046
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Hausenloy DJ,
      2. Yellon DM
      . Preconditioning and postconditioning: underlying mechanisms and clinical application. Atherosclerosis 2009;204:334–41. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2008.10.029
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    79. ↵
      1. Er F,
      2. Nia AM,
      3. Dopp H, et al
      . Ischemic preconditioning for prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy: randomized pilot renpro trial (renal protection trial). Circulation 2012;126:296–303. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.096370
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    80. ↵
      1. Whittaker P,
      2. Przyklenk K
      . Remote-conditioning ischemia provides a potential approach to mitigate contrast medium-induced reduction in kidney function: a retrospective observational cohort study. Cardiology 2011;119:145–50. doi:10.1159/000330930
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    81. ↵
      1. Deftereos S,
      2. Giannopoulos G,
      3. Tzalamouras V, et al
      . Renoprotective effect of remote ischemic post-conditioning by intermittent balloon inflations in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1949–55. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.023
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    82. ↵
      1. Brar SS,
      2. Aharonian V,
      3. Mansukhani P, et al
      . Haemodynamic-guided fluid administration for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury: The poseidon randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014;383:1814–23.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    83. ↵
      1. Briguori C,
      2. Visconti G,
      3. Focaccio A, et al
      . Renal insufficiency after contrast media administration trial ii (REMEDIAL ii): RenalGuard system in high-risk patients for contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Circulation 2011;124:1260–9. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.030759
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    84. ↵
      1. Minsinger KD,
      2. Kassis HM,
      3. Block CA, et al
      . Meta-analysis of the effect of automated contrast injection devices versus manual injection and contrast volume on risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol 2014;113:49–53. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.08.040
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    85. ↵
      1. Morcos SK,
      2. Thomsen HS,
      3. Webb JA
      . Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital R. Dialysis and contrast media. Eur Radiol 2002;12:3026–30. doi:10.1007/s00330-002-1629-2
      OpenUrlPubMed
    86. ↵
      1. Marenzi G,
      2. Lauri G,
      3. Campodonico J, et al
      . Comparison of two hemofiltration protocols for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in high-risk patients. Am J Med 2006;119:155–62. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.08.002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    87. ↵
      1. Choi MJ,
      2. Yoon JW,
      3. Han SJ, et al
      . The prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy by simultaneous hemofiltration during coronary angiographic procedures: a comparison with periprocedural hemofiltration. Int J Cardiol 2014;176:941–5. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.08.095
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    88. ↵
      1. Klarenbach SW,
      2. Pannu N,
      3. Tonelli MA, et al
      . Cost-effectiveness of hemofiltration to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease. Crit Care Med 2006;34:1044–51. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000206287.22318.C3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    89. ↵
      1. Duffy SJ,
      2. Ruygrok P,
      3. Juergens CP, et al
      . Removal of contrast media from the coronary sinus attenuates renal injury after coronary angiography and intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:525–6. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.065
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Seeliger E,
      2. Sendeski M,
      3. Rihal CS, et al
      . Contrast-induced kidney injury: Mechanisms, risk factors, and prevention. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2007–15. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr494
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Ungprasert P,
      2. Cheungpasitporn W,
      3. Crowson CS, et al
      . Individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Intern Med 2015;26:285–91. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2015.03.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Levin ML
      . Aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity: keys to prevention. J Crit Illn 1994;9:911–12, 915.
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Bates DW,
      2. Su L,
      3. Yu DT, et al
      . Correlates of acute renal failure in patients receiving parenteral amphotericin b. Kidney Int 2001;60:1452–9. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.00948.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Izzedine H,
      2. Launay-Vacher V,
      3. Deray G
      . Antiviral drug-induced nephrotoxicity. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;45:804–17. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.02.010
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. McNally PG,
      2. Feehally J
      . Pathophysiology of cyclosporin a nephrotoxicity: Experimental and clinical observations. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1992;7:791–804.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
      1. Ries F,
      2. Klastersky J
      . Nephrotoxicity induced by cancer chemotherapy with special emphasis on cisplatin toxicity. Am J Kidney Dis 1986;8:368–79. doi:10.1016/S0272-6386(86)80112-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Spargias K,
      2. Alexopoulos E,
      3. Kyrzopoulos S, et al
      . Ascorbic acid prevents contrast-mediated nephropathy in patients with renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography or intervention. Circulation 2004;110:2837–42. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000146396.19081.73
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Ix JH,
      2. McCulloch CE,
      3. Chertow GM
      . Theophylline for the prevention of radiocontrast nephropathy: a meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19:2747–53. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh468
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Spargias K,
      2. Adreanides E,
      3. Demerouti E, et al
      . Iloprost prevents contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography or intervention. Circulation 2009;120:1793–9. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.863159
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Li WH,
      2. Li DY,
      3. Qian WH, et al
      . Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with prostaglandin e1 in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:781–6. doi:10.1007/s11255-014-0674-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Shehata M
      . Impact of trimetazidine on incidence of myocardial injury and contrast-induced nephropathy in diabetic patients with renal dysfunction undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2014;114:389–94. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.04.052
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Morikawa S,
      2. Sone T,
      3. Tsuboi H, et al
      . Renal protective effects and the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy by atrial natriuretic peptide. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:1040–6. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.061
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Naeem M,
      2. McEnteggart GE,
      3. Murphy TP, et al
      . Fenoldopam for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN)-do we need more trials? A meta-analysis. Clin Imaging 2015;39:759–64. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.02.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Gare M,
      2. Haviv YS,
      3. Ben-Yehuda A, et al
      . The renal effect of low-dose dopamine in high-risk patients undergoing coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34:1682–8. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00422-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Beyazal H,
      2. Caliskan Z,
      3. Utaç C
      . Comparison of effects of isotonic sodium chloride with diltiazem in prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. Ren Fail 2014;36:351–5. doi:10.3109/0886022X.2013.866016
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Miller HI,
      2. Dascalu A,
      3. Rassin TA, et al
      . Effects of an acute dose of l-arginine during coronary angiography in patients with chronic renal failure: a randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial. Am J Nephrol 2003;23:91–5. doi:68036
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Gu G,
      2. Zhang Y,
      3. Lu R, et al
      . Additional furosemide treatment beyond saline hydration for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:387–94.
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Solomon R,
      2. Werner C,
      3. Mann D, et al
      . Effects of saline, mannitol, and furosemide to prevent acute decreases in renal function induced by radiocontrast agents. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1416–20. doi:10.1056/NEJM199411243312104
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Wang A,
      2. Holcslaw T,
      3. Bashore TM, et al
      . Exacerbation of radiocontrast nephrotoxicity by endothelin receptor antagonism. Kidney Int 2000;57:1675–80. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00012.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All contributors meet the criteria for authorship.

    • Funding DJH is funded by the British Heart Foundation (grant number FS/10/039/28270), the Rosetrees Trust, and is supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles