Review

Contrast media in patients with kidney disease: An update

Ali Mehdi, MD, MEd, Jonathan J. Taliercio, DO and Georges Nakhoul, MD, MEd
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine November 2020, 87 (11) 683-694; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.87a.20015

ABSTRACT

Concern for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) or nephrogenic systemic fibrosis may lead to withholding important studies from patients with kidney disease. However, the actual risk or even the existence of these conditions has recently been called into question. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Footnotes

  • The authors report no relevant financial relationships which, in the context of their contributions, could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest.

View Full Text

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Bartels ED,
    2. Brun GC,
    3. Gammeltoft A,
    4. Gjørup PA
    . Acute anuria following intravenous pyelography in a patient with myelomatosis. Acta Med Scand 1954; 150(4):297–302. doi:10.1111/j.0954-6820.1954.tb18632.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    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(3):143–149. doi:10.1056/NEJM198901193200303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Hou SH,
    2. Bushinsky DA,
    3. Wish JB,
    4. Cohen JJ,
    5. Harrington JT
    . Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency: a prospective study. Am J Med 1983; 74(2):243–248. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(83)90618-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. McCullough PA,
    2. Adam A,
    3. Becker CR, et al
    . Epidemiology and prognostic implications of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98(6A):5K–13K. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Khwaja A
    . KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract 2012; 120(4):c179–c184. doi:10.1159/000339789
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. McCullough PA,
    2. Adam A,
    3. Becker CR, et al
    . Risk prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98(6A):27K–36K. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Stratta P,
    2. Bozzola C,
    3. Quaglia M
    . Pitfall in nephrology: contrast nephropathy has to be differentiated from renal damage due to atheroembolic disease. J Nephrol 2012; 25(3):282–289. doi:10.5301/jn.5000093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Devireddy C,
    2. Hiremath S
    . Acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11(8):e007135. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007135
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Andò G,
    2. Gragnano F,
    3. Calabrò P,
    4. Valgimigli M
    . Radial vs femoral access for the prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) after coronary angiography or intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 92(7):E518–E526. doi:10.1002/ccd.27903
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Mehran R,
    2. Dangas GD,
    3. Weisbord SD
    . Contrast-associated acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med 2019; 380(22):2146–2155. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1805256
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. McDonald RJ,
    2. McDonald JS,
    3. Bida JP, et al
    . Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 2013; 267(1):106–118. doi:10.1148/radiol.12121823
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Chertow GM,
    2. Normand SLT,
    3. McNeil BJ
    . “Renalism”: inappropriately low rates of coronary angiography in elderly individuals with renal insufficiency”. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15(9):2462–2468. doi:10.1097/01.ASN.0000135969.33773.0B
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Davenport MS,
    2. Khalatbari S,
    3. Cohan RH,
    4. Dillman JR,
    5. Myles JD,
    6. Ellis JH
    . Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology 2013; 268(3):719–728. doi:10.1148/radiol.13122276
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. McDonald JS,
    2. McDonald RJ,
    3. Carter RE,
    4. Katzberg RW,
    5. Kallmes DF,
    6. Williamson EE
    . Risk of intravenous contrast material-mediated acute kidney injury: a propensity score-matched study stratified by baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology 2014; 271(1):65–73. doi:10.1148/radiol.13130775
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Hinson JS,
    2. Ehmann MR,
    3. Fine DM, et al
    . Risk of acute kidney injury after intravenous contrast media administration. Ann Emerg Med 2017; 69(5):577–586.e4. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.11.021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Hiremath S,
    2. Velez JCQ
    . Preventing a nonexistent entity: the curious case of contrast and acute kidney injury. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2020; 29(1):152–160. doi:10.1097/MNH.0000000000000562
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Rudnick MR,
    2. Leonberg-Yoo AK,
    3. Litt HI,
    4. Cohen RM,
    5. Hilton S,
    6. Reese PP
    . The controversy of contrast-induced nephropathy with intravenous contrast: what Is the risk? Am J Kidney Dis 2020; 75(1):105–113. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.05.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Ghumman SS,
    2. Weinerman J,
    3. Khan A, et al
    . Contrast induced-acute kidney injury following peripheral angiography with carbon dioxide versus iodinated contrast media: a meta-analysis and systematic review of current literature. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 90(3):437–448. doi:10.1002/ccd.27051
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Chaudhury P,
    2. Armanyous S,
    3. Harb SC, et al
    . Intra-arterial versus intravenous contrast and renal injury in chronic kidney disease: a propensity-matched analysis. Nephron 2019; 141(1):31–40. doi:10.1159/000494047
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Solomon R,
    2. Werner C,
    3. Mann D,
    4. D’elia J,
    5. Silva P
    . Effects of saline, mannitol, and furosemide on acute decreases in renal function induced by radiocontrast agents. N Engl J Med 1994; 331(21):1416–1420. doi:10.1056/NEJM199411243312104
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Mueller C,
    2. Buerkle G,
    3. Buettner HJ, et al
    . Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162(3):329–336. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.3.329
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Nijssen EC,
    2. Rennenberg RJ,
    3. Nelemans PJ, et al
    . Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): a prospective, randomised, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2017; 389(10076):1312–1322. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30057-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Timal RJ,
    2. Kooiman J,
    3. Sijpkens YWJ, et al
    . Effect of no prehydration vs sodium bicarbonate prehydration prior to contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the prevention of postcontrast acute kidney injury in adults with chronic kidney disease: the Kompas randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180(4):533–541. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7428
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Weisbord SD,
    2. Gallagher M,
    3. Jneid H, et al
    . Outcomes after angiography with sodium bicarbonate and acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(7):603–614. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1710933
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Berwanger O
    . Acetylcysteine for prevention of renal outcomes in patients undergoing coronary and peripheral vascular angiography: main results from the randomized Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced nephropathy Trial (ACT). Circulation 2011; 124(11):1250–1259. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.038943
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Bargman JM,
    2. Thorpe KE,
    3. Churchill DN
    . Relative contribution of residual renal function and peritoneal clearance to adequacy of dialysis: a reanalysis of the CANUSA study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001;(10):2158–2162. pmid:11562415
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Shemin D,
    2. Bostom AG,
    3. Laliberty P,
    4. Dworkin LD
    . Residual renal function and mortality risk in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 38(1):85–90. doi:10.1053/ajkd.2001.25198
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Davenport MS,
    2. Perazella MA,
    3. Yee J, et al
    . Use of intravenous iodinated contrast media in patients with kidney disease: consensus statements from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation. Radiology 2020; 294(3):660–668. doi:10.1148/radiol.2019192094
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Cowper SE,
    2. Bucala R,
    3. Leboit PE
    . Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy/nephrogenic systemic fibrosis—setting the record straight. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2006; 35(4):208–210. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.09.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Cowper SE,
    2. Robin HS,
    3. Steinberg SM,
    4. Su LD,
    5. Gupta S,
    6. LeBoit PE
    . Scleromyxoedema-like cutaneous diseases in renal-dialysis patients. Lancet 2000; 356(9234):1000–1001. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02694-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Grobner T
    . Gadolinium—a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21(4):1104–1108. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfk062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Marckmann P,
    2. Skov L,
    3. Rossen K, et al
    . Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17(9):2359–2362. doi:10.1681/ASN.2006060601
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Mendoza FA,
    2. Artlett CM,
    3. Sandorfi N,
    4. Latinis K,
    5. Piera-Velazquez S,
    6. Jimenez SA
    . Description of 12 cases of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2006; 35(4):238–249. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.08.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Jiménez SA,
    2. Artlett CM,
    3. Sandorfi N, et al
    . Dialysis-associated systemic fibrosis (nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy): study of inflammatory cells and transforming growth factor B1 expression in affected skin. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50(8):2660–2666. doi:10.1002/art.20362
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Wermuth PJ,
    2. Del Galdo F,
    3. Jiménez SA
    . Induction of the expression of profibrotic cytokines and growth factors in normal human peripheral blood monocytes by gadolinium contrast agents. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 60(5):1508–1518. doi:10.1002/art.24471
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Boyd AS,
    2. Zic JA,
    3. Abraham JL
    . Gadolinium deposition in nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 56(1):27–30. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2006.10.048.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Thomsen HS
    . Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: history and epidemiology. Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47(5):827–831, vi. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2009.05.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Stenver DI
    . Pharmacovigilance: what to do if you see an adverse reaction and the consequences. Eur J Radiol 2008; 66(2):184–186. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.02.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. US Food and Drug Administration
    . FDA warns that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are retained in the body; requires new class warnings. Accessed September 10, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/109825/download
  40. ↵
    1. European Medicines Agency
    . Assessment report for gadolinium-containing contrast agents. Accessed September 10, 2020. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/referral/gadolinium-h-31-1097-assessment-report_en.pdf
  41. ↵
    1. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media
    . ACR Manual on Contrast Media. American College of Radiology: 2020. Accessed September 10, 2020. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf
  42. ↵
    1. Thomsen HS,
    2. Morcos SK,
    3. Almén T, et al
    . Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2013; 23(2):307–218. doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2597-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Okada S,
    2. Katagiri K,
    3. Kumazaki T,
    4. Yokoyama H
    . Safety of gadolinium contrast agent in hemodialysis patients. Acta Radiol 2001; 42(3):339–341. pmid:11350296
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Endrikat J,
    2. Dohanish S,
    3. Schleyer N,
    4. Schwenke S,
    5. Agarwal S,
    6. Balzer T
    . 10 Years of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a comprehensive analysis of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis reports received by a pharmaceutical company from 2006 to 2016. Invest Radiol 2018; 53(9):541–550. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000462
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. Niendorf HP,
    2. Dinger JC,
    3. Haustein J,
    4. Cornelius I,
    5. Alhassan A,
    6. Clauß W
    . Tolerance data of Gd-DTPA: a review. Eur J Radiol 1991; 13(1):15–20. doi:10.1016/0720-048x(91)90049-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Hammer FD,
    2. Goffette PP,
    3. Malaise J,
    4. Mathurin P
    . Gadolinium dimeglumine: an alternative contrast agent for digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol 1999; 9(1):128–136. doi:10.1007/s003300050643.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Gibby WA,
    2. Gibby KA,
    3. Gibby WA
    . Comparison of Gd DTPA-BMA (Omniscan) versus Gd HP-DO3A (ProHance) retention in human bone tissue by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. Invest Radiol 2004; 39(3):138–142. doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000112789.57341.01
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Schieda N,
    2. Blaichman JI,
    3. Costa AF, et al
    . Gadolinium-based contrast agents in kidney disease: comprehensive review and clinical practice guideline issued by the Canadian Association of Radiologists. Can Assoc Radiol J 2018; 69(2):136–150. doi:10.1016/j.carj.2017.11.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Hao D,
    2. Ai T,
    3. Goerner F,
    4. Hu X,
    5. Runge VM,
    6. Tweedle M
    . MRI contrast agents: basic chemistry and safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 36(5):1060–1071. doi:10.1002/jmri.23725
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Attari H,
    2. Cao Y,
    3. Elmholdt TR,
    4. Zhao Y,
    5. Prince MR
    . A systematic review of 639 patients with biopsy-confirmed nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Radiology 2019; 292(2):376–386. doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182916
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Balogh EP,
    2. Miller BT,
    3. Ball JR
    , eds. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016.
  52. ↵
    1. Woolen SA,
    2. Shankar PR,
    3. Gagnier JJ,
    4. MacEachern MP,
    5. Singer L,
    6. Davenport MS
    . Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease receiving a group II gadolinium-based contrast agent: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180(2):223–230. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5284
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Davenport MS,
    2. Cohan RH,
    3. Ellis JH
    . Contrast media controversies in 2015: imaging patients with renal impairment or risk of contrast reaction. Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204(6):1174–1181. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.14259
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. Katayama H,
    2. Yamaguchi K,
    3. Kozuka T,
    4. Takashima T,
    5. Seez P,
    6. Matsuura K
    . Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. a report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990; 175(3):621–628. doi:10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Behzadi AH,
    2. Zhao Y,
    3. Farooq Z,
    4. Prince MR
    . Immediate allergic reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2018; 286(2):471–482. doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162740
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Michaely HJ,
    2. Aschauer M,
    3. Deutschmann H, et al
    . Gadobutrol in renally impaired patients: results of the GRIP study. Invest Radiol 2017; 52(1):55–60. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000307
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Soyer P,
    2. Dohan A,
    3. Patkar D,
    4. Gottschalk A
    . Observational study on the safety profile of gadoterate meglumine in 35,499 patients: the SECURE study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45(4):988–997. doi:10.1002/jmri.25486
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Tsushima Y,
    2. Awai K,
    3. Shinoda G, et al
    . Post-marketing surveillance of gadobutrol for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in Japan. Jpn J Radiol 2018; 36(11):676–685. doi:10.1007/s11604-018-0778-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Young LK,
    2. Matthew SZ,
    3. Houston JG
    . Absence of potential gadolinium toxicity symptoms following 22,897 gadoteric acid (Dotarem®) examinations, including 3,209 performed on renally insufficient individuals. Eur Radiol 2019; 29(4):1922–1930. doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5737-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Bruce R,
    2. Wentland AL,
    3. Haemel AK, et al
    . Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis using gadobenate dimeglumine in 1423 patients with renal insufficiency compared with gadodiamide. Invest Radiol 2016; 51(11):701–705. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000259
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. European Society of Urogenital Radiology
    . ESUR on contrast media. Accessed September 2020. http://www.esur.org/guidelines/
  62. ↵
    1. Zou Z,
    2. Zhang HL,
    3. Roditi GH,
    4. Leiner T,
    5. Kucharczyk W,
    6. Prince MR
    . Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: review of 370 biopsy-confirmed cases. JACC: Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 4(11):1206–1216. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.08.013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Kanda T,
    2. Ishii K,
    3. Kawaguchi H,
    4. Kitajima K,
    5. Takenaka D
    . High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 2014; 270(3):834–841. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131669
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Kanda T,
    2. Fukusato T,
    3. Matsuda M, et al
    . Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015; 276(1):228–232. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142690
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Semelka RC,
    2. Ramalho J,
    3. Vakharia A, et al
    . Gadolinium deposition disease: initial description of a disease that has been around for a while. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34(10):1383–1390. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2016.07.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    ACR-ASNR position statement on the use of gadolinium contrast agents. Created May 2016. Accessed September 29, 2020. https://icpme.us/2016ACR/ACR_ASNR_Position_Statement_on_the_Use_of_Gadolinium_Contrast_Agents.pdf

This article requires you to have a ccjm.org account to view the full text. If you already have an account, you may log in below to view this article along with all other CCJM content. If you do not have an account, register here. It’s free!

Back to top

Registration is Now Required for Free Access to CCJM Content

Register once and log in for full access to articles and content. Click “Register” in the upper right corner and follow the simple instructions to create a new account.

If you are using a mobile device, click on the settings icon to access the Register link.

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Subjects