Bench-to-bedside review: Preventive measures for contrast-induced nephropathy in critically ill patients

cc3028 CCJ Review Bench-to-bedside review: Preventive measures for contrast-induced nephropathy in critically ill patients van den Berk Guido guidovdberk@hotmail.com Tonino Sanne de Fijter Carola Smit Watske wa.smit@amc.uva.nl Schultz J Marcus m.j.schultz@amc.uva.nl

Resident, Department of Internal Medicine, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Internist, Department of Nephrology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Internist, Department of Nephrology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Internist, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Critical Care 1364-8535 2005 94361370 1613738510.1186/cc3028 7 1 2005 2005 BioMed Central Ltd contrast-induced nephropathy fenoldopam haemodialysis haemofiltration intensive care medicine N-acetylcysteine sodium bicarbonate theophylline

Abstract

An increasing number of diagnostic imaging procedures requires the use of intravenous radiographic contrast agents, which has led to a parallel increase in the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy. Risk factors for development of contrast-induced nephropathy include pre-existing renal dysfunction (especially diabetic nephropathy and multiple myeloma-associated nephropathy), dehydration, congestive heart failure and use of concurrent nephrotoxic medication (including aminoglycosides and amphotericin B). Because contrast-induced nephropathy accounts for a significant increase in hospital-acquired renal failure, several strategies to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy are currently advocated, including use of alternative imaging techniques (for which contrast media are not needed), use of (the lowest possible amount of) iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agents (instead of high-osmolar contrast agents), hyperhydration and forced diuresis. Administration of N-acetylcysteine, theophylline, or fenoldopam, sodium bicarbonate infusion, and periprocedural haemofiltration/haemodialysis have been investigated as preventive measures in recent years. This review addresses the literature on these newer strategies. Since only one (nonrandomized) study has been performed in intensive care unit patients, at present it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about preventive measures for contrast-induced nephropathy in the critically ill. Further studies are needed to determine the true role of these preventive measures in this group of patients who are at risk for contrast-induced nephropathy. Based on the available evidence, we advise administration of N-acetylcysteine, preferentially orally, or theophylline intravenously, next to hydration with bicarbonate solutions.

Introduction

Contrast-induced nephropathy, defined as an increase in serum creatinine by more than 25% or 44 μmol/l from baseline within 3 days after administration of contrast agents in the absence of an alternative aetiology 12, is a major cause of hospital-acquired acute renal failure 34. Indeed, the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy is as high as 10–30% in high-risk patient groups 5678. Contrast-induced nephropathy increases morbidity, mortality and costs of medical care, and length of hospital stay, and not just for those patients who need renal replacement therapy because of this complication 35789. Risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy include pre-existing renal failure (especially diabetic nephropathy and multiple myeloma), hypovolaemia, administration of (cumulative) high doses of (hyperosmolar) contrast media, and concomitant use of drugs that interfere with the regulation of renal perfusion 3810111213.

The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology 14 has produced simple guidelines to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy. These guidelines emphasize the importance of patient selection (avoid the use of contrast media in high risk groups; i.e. use another imaging technique) and advises avoidance of the use (of large doses) of (hyperosmolar) contrast agents. Furthermore, the guidelines recommend ensuring that patients are well hydrated; cessation of diuretics (particularly loop-diuretics); and cessation of concurrent nephrotoxic drugs, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aminoglycosides, amfotericine B, and antiviral drugs like acyclovir and foscarnet.

Critically ill patients are a group at high risk for the development of contrast-induced nephropathy because they frequently suffer from renal failure as a part of multiple organ failure, and they may have pre-existing diabetic nephropathy. Moreover, they are repeatedly administered contrast media intravenously, sometimes in large dosages. Unfortunately, the preventive measures described in the guidelines cited above are frequently not applicable to this high-risk group; for instance, avoidance of use of contrast media is almost never an option in this group, and in most instances nephrotoxic drugs cannot be stopped.

Several additional measures to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy have been tested in randomized controlled trials in recent years. These measures include administration of the free radical scavenger N-acetylcysteine (NAC), the adenosine antagonist theophylline, sodium bicarbonate, the dopamine type 1 receptor agonist fenoldopam, and haemofiltration/ haemodialysis. In this report, following a brief discussion of the pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy, we review the published clinical trials examining these additional preventive measures. Thereafter, we focus on contrast-induced nephropathy in critically ill patients and attempt to provide clear recommendations regarding whether/when these new preventive measures may be applied in critically ill patients.

Search results

A search of the PubMed database (National Library of Medicine, USA; http://www.pubmed.org) from 1966 to July 2004 for unlimited citations using the MeSH terms 'nephropathy' AND 'media, contrast' yielded a total of 317 publications. A search using the terms 'prevention and control' (as a subheading in the MeSH database) OR 'prevention' found a total of 662,665 papers. Combining these searches and limiting the new search to 'human' and 'clinical trial' resulted in a list of 64 papers, 59 of which were in English language. After carefully reading the abstracts, only those papers reporting on clinical trials in humans were selected for further reading. The reference lists of these publications and several reviews on preventive measures 15161718192021 were used to find additional papers. This search resulted in identification of a total of 16 papers on NAC 13222324252627282930313233343536, one paper on sodium bicarbonate 37, nine papers on theophylline 383940414243444546, five papers on fenoldopam 2336474849 and four papers on haemofiltration/haemodialysis 50515253. Only one published study dealt with critically ill patients 43.

Pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy: rationale for additional preventive measures

Although the pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy has not completely been elucidated, it is suggested that nephropathy following contrast administration is caused by a combination of renal ischaemia and direct tubular epithelial cell toxicity. (The reader is referred to several excellent reviews 21545556.)

A direct toxic effect of contrast on renal epithelial cells is suggested by histopathological changes, including epithelial cell vacuolization, interstitial inflammation and cellular necrosis, as well as by increased excretion of enzymes in the urine after contrast administration 5758. Because contrast-induced nephropathy is less frequent with iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast agents than with high-osmolar contrast agents, it is believed that osmolality per se may play a role in its pathogenesis. Reactive oxygen metabolites play a role in the pathogenesis of a variety of renal diseases 59. Generation of reactive oxygen species may play a role in the pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy too 6061. Based on this theory regarding the pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy, measures that are aimed at scavenging free reactive oxygen species (such as with NAC – a free radical scavenger) or at limiting the production of free reactive oxygen species (using sodium bicarbonate infusion, which prevents an acidic environment in tubular urine) have been advocated as adjuncts to hyperhydration and use of iso-osmolar contrast media.

Investigations into the pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy 6263 have demonstrated that following intravenous administration of contrast, after a transient increase, renal blood flow decreases for a prolonged period under normal conditions. The renal medulla normally has an extremely low oxygen tension, which makes the renal medulla susceptible to ischaemic injury. The contrast-induced decrease in renal blood flow further diminishes medullary oxygen tension, resulting in epithelial cell necrosis. Based on preclinical studies, endogenous intrarenal adenosine has been implicated as a causative factor in contrast-induced nephropathy. Adenosine causes afferent arteriolar vaso-constriction and efferent arteriolar vasodilatation, thereby reducing the glomerular filtration rate. This theory on the pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy resulted in the introduction of measures aimed at increasing renal blood flow, for example administration of theophylline (a selective renal adenosine antagonist) or of fenoldopam mesylate (a selective dopamine-1 receptor agonist that increases effective renal plasma flow without concomitant changes in glomerular filtration rate). Previous studies on vasodilators such as calcium antagonists, dopamine, atrial natriuretic peptide and endothelin antagonists either demonstrated no effect or found that these agents had an adverse effect on contrast-induced nephropathy. These vasodilators predominantly increase cortical blood flow, giving rise to an intrarenal steal phenomenon and subsequent increased medullary ischaemia.

Another potential approach to preventing contrast-induced nephropathy is the use of haemodialysis or haemofiltration. The half-lives of contrast media are increased several fold in patients with impaired renal function because most contrast media are excreted in the urine 64. Haemodialysis removes contrast media effectively, and therefore it may prevent contrast-induced nephropathy 656667. Haemofiltration is also able to remove contrast from the circulation 68. In addition, haemofiltration results in dilution of contrast agents via infusion of the replacement fluid, which decreases the concentration of the contrast agent in the blood, possibly reducing exposure of the kidneys to the nephrotoxic effects of contrast media.

Clinical trials on prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy

N-acetylcysteine

Sixteen randomized controlled trials investigated the efficacy of NAC in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy, both in patients with pre-existing renal insufficiency and in patients with normal renal function (Table 1) 13222324252627282930313233343536. One of these trials compared NAC with fenoldopam 36. In another study, two different doses of NAC were compared directly 33. In the majority of studies, 600 mg NAC twice daily was administered on the day before and on the day of intravenous administration of contrast media. Cumulative dosages varied from 1500 mg to 4800 mg. In all but two studies 2831, NAC was administered orally.

Table 1

Randomized controlled trials with N-acetylcysteine as a prophylactic measure to prevent contrast-induced nephouropathy

Reference

Year

Number of patients

Reason for contrast administration

Study design

Dose/timing/route of administration of NAC

Hydration regimen

Main outcome^a

[22]

2000

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

RR 0.11 (95% CI 0.02–0.86)

[23]

2002

123

Various

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

RR 1.18 (95% CI 0.45–3.12)

[24]

2002

183

Various

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

RR 0.59 (95% CI 0.22–1.57)

[25]

2002

CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

RR 0.18 (95% CI 0.04–0.72)

[26]

2002

CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

1200 mg po, 1 hour before and3 hours after contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.55–2.63)

[27]

2002

121

CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

400 mg po, twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

RR 0.14 (95% CI 0.03–0.57)

[28]

2003

CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

150 mg/kg iv, immediately before contrast

NAC group: 500 ml 0.9% saline before and 500 ml 0.9% saline 4 hours after contrast

RR 1.20 (95% CI 0.55–2.63)

Control group: 1 ml/kg per hour 0.9% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after

[29]

2003

179

Elective CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, twice daily day before and on day of contrast

75 ml/hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

13% versus 12%; NS

[30]

2003

200

Elective CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.9% saline 12 hours before – 6 hours after contrast

RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.11–0.96)

[31]

2003

108

CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

1200 mg iv, 12 hours before and immediately after contrast

20 ml/hour 5% dextrose 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

3.8% versus 5.9%; NS

[32]

2003

Elective CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, twice daily, day before contrast; and 600 mg po three times daily, day of contrast

1–2 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline for 4–12 hours before – 75 ml/hour 0.45% saline for 12 hours after contrast

4.8% versus 31.8%;P = 0.046

[13]

2003

Elective CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

375 mg po, twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

RR 1.28 (95% CI 0.30–5.41)

[33]

2004

223

Various

Low-dose versus high-dose NAC

600 mg po twice daily versus 1200 mg po twice daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

11% versus 3.5%; P = 0.038

[34]

2004

Cardiovascular procedures

NAC + hydration versus hydration

400 mg po, three times daily, day before and on day of contrast

100 ml/hour 0.9% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

17.4% versus 13.3%; NS

[35]

2004

CAG

NAC + hydration versus hydration

600 mg po, three times daily, day before and on day of contrast

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

10% versus 8%; NS

^aIncidences of contrast-induced nephouropathy. CAG, coronary angiography; CI, confidence interval; CT, computed tomography, iv, intravenously; NAC, N-acetylcysteine; NS, not significant; po, by mouth; RR, relative risk.

Of the 16 clinical trials, 14 compared NAC plus hydration with hydration alone 1322232425262728293031323435. Although five trials found a significant protective effect of NAC compared with standard treatment 2225273032, eight found no beneficial effect of administration of NAC 1323242628293135. Possible explanations for these contrasting results are differences in applied hydration regimens, in the patient populations studied and in the volumes of contrast media administered, and variations in the timing and dosing of NAC. In one study 33, double dose of oral NAC appeared to be more effective than the standard dose in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. Side-effects of NAC are few. Oral administration of NAC caused gastrointestinal side effects in one study 13; temporary flushing, itching and rash, as well as congestive heart failure, were observed with intravenous administration 28.

Three meta-analyses 161718 on the protective effect of NAC against contrast-induced nephropathy were conducted. Birck and coworkers 16 and Isenbarger and colleagues 17 included only seven of the above-mentioned trials in their meta-analyses, and Alonso and coworkers 18 included eight of them. All three meta-analyses concluded that prophylactic use of NAC reduced the relative risk (RR) for contrast-induced nephropathy. In their meta-analysis, Birck and coworkers found a RR reduction of 56% (RR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21–0.88). The other meta-analyses found RR reductions of 63% (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16–0.84) 17 and 59% (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.79) 18. Unfortunately, several studies showing negative results were published after the three meta-analyses.

It is questionable whether NAC truly influences the extent of contrast-induced nephropathy. It may be that NAC has a direct effect on creatinine concentration 6970. A recent study, conducted in volunteers with normal renal function, found an effect of NAC on plasma creatinine values and estimated glomerular filtration rate without any effect on cystatin C levels (another marker of glomerular filtration rate). Regrettably, nearly all investigators only used serum creatinine as a surrogate end-point in their trials. In future trials, glomerular filtration rate should be measured directly, or at least additional markers of renal function (e.g. serum cystatin C) must be assessed.

Nevertheless, because the side-effects of NAC are few, it is now widely recommended that NAC be administered before and on the day of contrast administration.

Theophylline

Eight randomized controlled trials and one nonrandomized study have been performed investigating the protective effect of theophylline on contrast-induced nephropathy (Table 2) 383940414243444546. In one of these studies, theophylline plus hydration was compared with two other preventive regimens (hydration alone or hydration plus dopamine) 41. The dosage, timing and route of administration varied between the different studies. In six studies, theophylline was given intravenously and in three studies it was given orally. The timing of administration varied from 2 days to 30 min before and 3 days after contrast administration. Cumulative dosages varied from 165 mg to 4000 mg.

Table 2

Randomized controlled trials with theophylline as a prophylactic measure to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy

Reference

Year

Number of patients

Reason for contrast administration

Study design

Dose/timing/route of administration of theophylline

Hydration regimen

Main outcome^a

[38]

1994

Various reasons

RCT: theophylline versus placebo

5 mg/kg body weight iv, 45 min before contrast

1000 ml/hour saline 0.9% NaCl iv, 4 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

GFR and CC ↓ in placebo (P < 0.01)

[39]

1995

Various reasons

RCT: theophylline versus placebo; non-ionic, low-osmolality CM versus ionic, high-osmolality CM

4 × 2.88 mg/kg body weight, po, start 1 hour before contrast

>1.43 ml/kg per hr dextrose 5% iv or po 24 hours before – 48 hours after contrast

Non-ionic, low-osmolar: CC ↓ 18 ± 4% in placebo versus 0% in theophylline group (P < 0.05) Ionic, high-osmolar: CC ↓ 42 ± 5% in placebo versus 24 ± 3% in theophylline group (P < 0.01)

[40]

1998

Various reasons

RCT: theophylline versus placebo

165 mg iv, placebo, 30 min before contrast

Not specified

GFR ↓ in placebo (P < 0.001)

[41]

1999

Coronary angioplasty

RCT: theophylline versus dopamine versus placebo

4 mg/kg iv, 1 hour, start 2 hours before contrast followed by 0.4 mg/kg per hour for 12 hours

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% saline iv 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

35% versus 50% versus 30%; NS

[42]

1999

Various reasons

RCT: theophylline versus placebo

810 mg daily po, 2 days before – 3 days after contrast

2000–2500 ml 0.45% saline iv or po 24 hours before – 24 hours after

6% (2/35) versus 3% (1/29); NS

[44]

2002

100

Various reasons

RCT: theophylline versus placebo

200 mg iv, 30 min before contrast

Variable (>2000 ml was advised)

4% versus 16%; P = 0.046

[45]

2002

Coronary angiography

RCT: theophylline versus placebo

200 mg po, twice daily, 24 hours before – 48 hours after contrast

Not specified

3% versus 31%; P = 0.004

[46]

2003

100

Coronary angiography

RCT: theophylline versus placebo

200 mg iv, 30 min before contrast

Variable (>2000 ml was advised)

4% versus 20%; P = 0.0138

^aIncidences of contrast-induced nephropathy, unless stated otherwise. BW, body weight; CC, creatinine clearance; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; iv, intravenously; NS, not significant; po, by mouth; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Seven trials 38394041444546 concluded that theophylline had a preventive effect, and two trials 4243 did not find a beneficial effect in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the available results, primarily because the studies were performed in small groups of patients. Furthermore, inclusion criteria (such as extent of pre-existing renal dysfunction and comorbidity), the amount and osmolality of the contrast media used, and concomitant medication varied widely.

Although optimal intravenous hydration is an important preventive measure (as described above), only a minority of the studies employed a strict intravenous hydration regimen 383941. In the other trials the hydration regimen was either not mentioned or the amount of fluid administered varied between patients. Another explanation for conflicting effects of theophylline in individual patients may be the unpredictable bioavailability after oral administration of theophylline.

Because the majority of studies show a favourable effect of theophylline and because side effects of this drug are few (especially at the proposed low dosage), theophylline may be an attractive measure to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy. In the case of acute need to use contrast agents (i.e. when adequate hydration cannot be achieved or if NAC was not given on the day before contrast administration), theophylline has the advantage that it can be given directly before contrast injection.

Studies on fenoldopam

Five trials have been performed evaluating fenoldopam infusion as a preventive measure for contrast-induced nephropathy 2336474849, four of which were randomized controlled trials (Table 3). In two studies fenoldopam was compared with standard therapy 4849; in the other studies fenoldopam was compared with NAC 2336. Fenoldopam administration varied from 15 min to 4 hours before and from 4 to 12 hours after intravenous administration of contrast media. In all studies, infusion of 0.1 μg/kg per min fenoldopam was prescribed.

Table 3

Randomized controlled trials with fenoldopam, sodium bicarbonate, and haemodialysis/haemofiltration as prophylactic measures to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy

Reference

Year

Number of patients

Reason for contrast administration

Study design

Dose/timing/route of drug administration

Hydration regimen

Main outcome^a

Clinical trials with fenoldopam

[23]

2002

123

Cardiovascular procedures

RCT: hydration plus NAC po versus hydration alone versus hydration plus fenoldopam

Fenoldopam: 0.1 μg/kg per min, 4 hours before – 4 hours after contrast NAC 2 × 600 mg

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% NaCl iv 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

18% in the NAC group versus 15% in the NaCl group (P = NS; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.45–3.12)

[48]

2002

Cardiovascular procedures

RCT: hydration versus hydration plus fenoldopam

Fenoldopam at 0.1 μg/kg per min, >1 hour before contrast

100 ml/hour 0.45% NaCl iv, 3 hours before – 4 hours after contrast

41% in the saline group versus 21% in the fenoldopam group(P = 0.148); diabetes patients 64% versus 33% (P = 0.14)

[49]

2003

315

Angiography

RCT: fenoldopam

Fenoldopam 0.05 μg/kg per min titrated to 0.10 μg/kg per min, 30 min before – 12 hours after contrast

1.5 ml/kg per hour 0.45% NaCl iv 2–12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

34% in fenoldopam group versus 30% in the placebo group (P = 0.61; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.79–1.57)

Clinical trials with sodium bicarbonate

[37]

2004

119

Various reasons

RCT: saline versus sodium bicarbonate before and after contrast administration

3 ml/kg per hour 154 mEq/l sodium bicarbonate 1 hour pre-procedure + 1 ml/kg per hour154 mEq/l sodium bicarbonate 6 hours post-procedure

The control group received a similar infusion, but with 154 mEq/l NaCl

14% in saline patients versus 2% in patients receiving sodium bicarbonate (P = 0.02; 95% CI 0.03–0.21)

Clinical trials with haemodialysis/haemofiltration

[50]

2001

113

Various reasons

RCT: haemodialysis versus nonhaemodialysis treatment after injection of contrast

Directly after contrast exposure

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% NaCl iv 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

No significant differences

[52]

2003

114

Coronary angioplasty

RCT: haemofiltration (in an intensive care unit) versus hydration (in a step-down unit)

4–8 hours before to 18–24 hours after procedure

1 ml/kg per hour 0.45% NaCl iv 12 hours before – 12 hours after contrast

5% versus 50% (P < 0.001)

[53]

2003

Angiography

RCT: 4-hour online dialysis during contrast injection versus standard therapy

Haemodialysis simultaneously with contrast administration

2000 ml 0.9% NaCl 6 hours before – 6 hours after contrast

No significant differences

^aIncidences of contrast-induced nephropathy. CI, confidence interval; iv, intravenously; NAC, N-acetylcysteine; po, by mouth; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk.

None of the randomized controlled studies found any beneficial effect regarding prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy. One study, however, suggested that fenoldopam is as effective as NAC in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy 23.

One important drawback of fenoldopam administration is a potential fall in systemic blood pressure caused by fenoldopam-induced vasodilatation. Based on the negative effects of fenoldopam and the drawback of potential hypotension, use of fenoldopam as a measure to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy cannot be recommended.

Sodium bicarbonate

Only one study 37 evaluated the protective effect of sodium bicarbonate. In that study 154 mEq/l sodium bicarbonate was administered at a dosage of 3 ml/kg per hour for 1 hour, starting 1 hour before the intravenous administration of contrast media followed by 1 ml/kg per hour for 6 hours. That study found a strong beneficial effect of infusion of sodium bicarbonate; whereas contrast-induced nephropathy developed in 13.6% of patients receiving sodium chloride, only 1.7% of patients receiving sodium bicarbonate developed nephropathy.

Unfortunately, the positive results of that study have not (yet) been confirmed by other trials. However, because side effects of this regimen are few, in the case of acute need to administer contrast (i.e. when there is not sufficient time to achieve adequate hydration and NAC administration has not yet started) hydration with sodium bicarbonate is an option.

Haemodialysis/haemofiltration

Four studies evaluated the effect of haemodialysis or haemofiltration on contrast-induced nephropathy 50515253. Three studies were performed in a randomized manner (Table 3) 505253. In one study, patients were randomly assigned to receive haemodialysis or standard therapy 50; unfortunately, harmful effects of haemodialysis were found in that study. Two studies compared standard therapy with haemofiltration; while one study did not show any effect of haemofiltration 53, the study by Marenzi and coworkers 52 found haemofiltration to be a very effective preventive measure. Contrast-induced nephropathy developed in only 5% of patients treated with haemofiltration versus 50% of control patients 52. Regrettably, however, patients were admitted to different wards (patients assigned to receive haemofiltration were admitted to an intensive care unit, whereas control patients were admitted to a step-down facility). This difference might have had an impact on outcome. In addition, the lower plasma creatinine concentration that was found in the haemofiltration group does not imply less renal dysfunction because haemofiltration itself lowers the plasma creatinine concentration. Based on these findings, at present, haemodialysis and/or haemofiltration cannot be recommended as a measure to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy.

Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in critically ill patients

It is uncertain whether contrast-induced nephropathy is an important entity in intensive care medicine. Indeed, no data are available on the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy in the critically ill or on whether it has a profound impact on morbidity and mortality in these patients. However, the critically ill form an important group at risk for development of contrast-induced nephropathy. Renal failure is a common complication of critical illness; the incidence of acute renal failure among intensive care admissions reaches 15–20%, with 4–6% requiring some form of acute renal replacement therapy 71. Furthermore, the critically ill are often subject to a number of risk factors for the development of contrast-induced nephropathy (e.g. pre-existing renal insufficiency, especially diabetic nephropathy), factors that influence renal perfusion (e.g. hypovolaemia) and administration of concomitant nephrotoxic medication. It has been shown that even modest degrees of acute renal failure without need for haemodialysis increase the risk for death by fivefold 7.

To the best of our knowledge, there are at present no (randomized controlled) studies on use of NAC, bicarbonate hydration and haemofiltration/haemodialysis as measures to prevent contrast nephropathy in critically ill patients.

Only one published report on measures to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy included critically ill patients 43.

Huber and coworkers investigated whether theophylline reduced the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy in a prospective study in which results were compared with a series of patients at similar risk for contrast-induced nephropathy in a medical intensive care unit. Seventy-eight patients with at least one risk factor for contrast-induced nephropathy underwent 150 consecutive radiocontrast administrations. Patients received theophylline intravenously 30 min before infusion of contrast medium. Concentrations of serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen, urine volume, fluid balance, and the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy were monitored for 48 hours. Despite the large number of risk factors (6.8 per patient), including a high dose of contrast agent, impaired renal function, diabetes mellitus, use of aminoglycosides, vancomycin and catecholamines, serum creatinine concentrations were not increased 24 hours after contrast administration. Only three patients (2%) developed contrast-induced nephropathy, which was significantly lower than the 14% (78/565) in the retrospective data obtained in patients at comparable risk for contrast-induced nephropathy. Side effects such as tachyarrhythmias were not described. Unfortunately, there was no control group.

Nevertheless, because NAC has few side effects, based on studies conducted in non-critically-ill patients this preventive measure may be applied in critically ill patients. Where there is an urgent need for imaging studies that require administration of contrast media, theophylline and bicarbonate hydration are options. However, future studies are needed to determine whether such preventive measures really work. In future trials, the glomerular filtration rate should preferably be measured directly, or at least additional markers of renal function (such as serum cystatin C) should be assessed to determine the effect of the studied strategy. In addition, other 'hard' end-points, such as hospital morbidity and mortality and dialysis dependency, should be considered in the study design 69.

Conclusion

Given the scarce data on preventive measures to reduce contrast-induced nephropathy in intensive care unit patients, no clear recommendations can yet be given. New studies are needed to determine whether such preventive measures are effective in critically ill patients. In addition to plasma creatinine concentrations and glomerular filtration rate, additional markers of renal function (such as serum cystatin C) must be assessed, and other end-points such as hospital morbidity and mortality and dialysis dependency should be considered in the study design.

Simple preventive measures such as avoidance of contrast agents (if possible), adequate hydration and use of low-osmolar contrast agents at the lowest possible volume should be applied. Concomitant use of nephrotoxic medication should be avoided. Despite the absence of studies on preventive measures for contrast-induced nephropathy in critically ill patients, we recommend use of preventive measures that have a demonstrated potential effect in patents who are not critically ill, specifically oral NAC on the day before and on the day of contrast administration, as well as hydration with bicarbonate. If administration of NAC is not possible, then theophylline administration is an alternative preventive measure.

Abbreviations

CI = confidence interval; NAC = N-acetylcysteine; RR = relative risk.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Prevention of nephrotoxicity induced by radiocontrast agents Barrett BJ Parfrey PS N Engl J Med 1994 331 1449 1450 10.1056/NEJM199411243312111 7969286 Contrast media and the kidney: European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines Thomsen HS Morcos SK Br J Radiol 2003 76 513 518 10.1259/bjr/26964464 12893691 Incidence, risk factors, and clinical course of acute renal insufficiency after cardiac catheterization in patients 70 years of age or older. A prospective study Rich MW Crecelius CA Arch Intern Med 1990 150 1237 1242 10.1001/archinte.150.6.1237 2353856 Contrast-associated nephropathy Soma VR Cavusoglu E Vidhun R Frishman WH Sharma SK Heart Dis 2002 4 372 379 10.1097/00132580-200211000-00006 12441014 Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality McCullough PA Wolyn R Rocher LL Levin RN O'Neill WW Am J Med 1997 103 368 375 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00150-2 9375704 The prognostic implications of further renal function deterioration within 48 h of interventional coronary procedures in patients with pre-existent chronic renal insufficiency Gruberg L Mintz GS Mehran R Gangas G Lansky AJ Kent KM Pichard AD Satler LF Leon MB J Am Coll Cardiol 2000 36 1542 1548 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00917-7 11079656 The effect of acute renal failure on mortality. A cohort analysis Levy EM Viscoli CM Horwitz RI JAMA 1996 275 1489 1494 10.1001/jama.275.19.1489 8622223 Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention Rihal CS Textor SC Grill DE Berger PB Ting HH Best PJ Singh M Bell MR Barsness GW Mathew V Circulation 2002 105 2259 2264 10.1161/01.CIR.0000016043.87291.33 12010907 Predictors of length of stay after coronary stenting Aronow HD Peyser PA Eagle KA Bates ER Werns SW Russman PL Crum MA Harris K Moscucci M Am Heart J 2001 142 799 805 10.1067/mhj.2001.119371 11685165 Contrast nephropathy in azotemic diabetic patients undergoing coronary angiography Manske CL Sprafka JM Strony JT Wang Y Am J Med 1990 89 615 620 10.1016/0002-9343(90)90180-L 2239981 Risk of radiocontrast nephropathy in patients with and without diabetes mellitus Weisberg LS Kurnik PB Kurnik BR Kidney Int 1994 45 259 265 8127017 Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty Mueller C Buerkle G Buettner HJ Petersen J Perruchoud AP Eriksson U Marsch S Roskamm H Arch Intern Med 2002 162 329 336 10.1001/archinte.162.3.329 11822926 Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after coronary angiography Oldemeyer JB Biddle WP Wurdeman RL Mooss AN Cichowski E Hilleman DE Am Heart J 2003 146 E23 14661012 Contrast-media-induced nephrotoxicity: a consensus report. Contrast Media Safety Committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Morcos SK Thomsen HS Webb JA Eur Radiol 1999 9 1602 1613 10.1007/s003300050894 10525875 Acetylcysteine and contrast media nephropathy. Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine Tepel M Zidek W van der Giet M Schwarzfeld C Laufer U Liermann D Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2002 11 503 506 10.1097/00041552-200209000-00005 12187314 Acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast nephropathy: meta-analysis Birck R Krzossok S Markowetz F Schnulle P van der Woude FJ Braun C Lancet 2003 362 598 603 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14189-X 12944058 Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on the usefulness of acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast nephropathy Isenbarger DW Kent SM O'Malley PG Am J Cardiol 2003 92 1454 1458 10.1016/j.amjcard.2003.08.059 14675586 Prevention of radiocontrast nephropathy with N-acetylcysteine in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials Alonso A Lau J Jaber BL Weintraub A Sarnak MJ Am J Kidney Dis 2004 43 1 9 10.1053/j.ajkd.2003.09.009 14712421 Prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy Asif A Epstein M Am J Kidney Dis 2004 44 12 24 15211433 Fenoldopam and Nacetylcysteine for the prevention of radiographic contrast material-induced nephropathy: a review Walker PD Brokering KL Theobald JC Pharmacotherapy 2003 23 1617 1626 10.1592/phco.23.15.1617.31958 14695041 Prevention of contrast media nephrotoxicity: the story so far Morcos SK Clin Radiol 2004 59 381 389 10.1016/j.crad.2003.11.005 15081843 Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine Tepel M van der Giet M Schwarzfeld C Laufer U Liermann D Zidek W N Engl J Med 2000 343 180 184 10.1056/NEJM200007203430304 10900277 Prospective randomized study of N-acetylcysteine, fenoldopam, and saline for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy Allaqaband S Tumuluri R Malik AM Gupta A Volkert P Shalev Y Bajwa TK Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002 57 279 283 10.1002/ccd.10323 12410497 Acetylcysteine and contrast agent-associated nephrotoxicity Briguori C Manganelli F Scarpato P Elia PP Golia B Riviezzo G Lepore S Librera M Villari B Colombo A J Am Coll Cardiol 2002 40 298 303 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01958-7 12106935 Acetylcysteine to prevent angiography-related renal tissue injury (the APART trial) Diaz-Sandoval LJ Kosowsky BD Losordo DW Am J Cardiol 2002 89 356 358 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)02243-3 11809444 A randomized controlled trial of Nacetylcysteine to prevent contrast nephropathy in cardiac angiography Durham JD Caputo C Dokko J Zaharakis T Pahlavan M Keltz J Dutka P Marzo K Maesaka JK Fishbane S Kidney Int 2002 62 2202 2207 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00673.x 12427146 Acetylcysteine protects against acute renal damage in patients with abnormal renal function undergoing a coronary procedure Shyu KG Cheng JJ Kuan P J Am Coll Cardiol 2002 40 1383 1388 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02308-2 12392825 A rapid protocol for the prevention of contrast-induced renal dysfunction: the RAPPID study Baker CS Wragg A Kumar S De Palma R Baker LR Knight CJ J Am Coll Cardiol 2003 41 2114 2118 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00487-X 12821233 Oral acetylcysteine does not protect renal function from moderate to high doses of intravenous radiographic contrast Boccalandro F Amhad M Smalling RW Sdringola S Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003 58 336 341 10.1002/ccd.10389 12594698 Acetylcysteine for prevention of acute deterioration of renal function following elective coronary angiography and intervention: a randomized controlled trial Kay J Chow WH Chan TM Lo SK Kwok OH Yip A Fan K Lee CH Lam WF JAMA 2003 289 553 558 10.1001/jama.289.5.553 12578487 Acetylcysteine, coronary procedure and prevention of contrast-induced worsening of renal function: which benefit for which patient? Kefer JM Hanet CE Boitte S Wilmotte L De Kock M Acta Cardiol 2003 58 555 560 14713182 Prophylaxis of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography MacNeill BD Harding SA Bazari H Patton KK Colon-Hernadez P DeJoseph D Jang IK Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003 60 458 461 10.1002/ccd.10684 14624421 Standard vs double dose of Nacetylcysteine to prevent contrast agent associated nephrotoxicity. Acetylcysteine and contrast agent-associated nephrotoxicity Briguori C Colombo A Violante A Balestrieri P Manganelli F Paolo Elia P Golia B Lepore S Riviezzo G Scarpato P Eur Heart J 2004 25 206 211 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.11.016 14972420 Effect of Nacetylcysteine for prevention of contrast nephropathy in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency: a randomized trial Fung JW Szeto CC Chan WW Kum LC Chan AK Wong JT Wu EB Yip GW Chan JY Yu CM Am J Kidney Dis 2004 43 801 808 10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.01.010 15112170 Oral acetylcysteine as an adjunct to saline hydration for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy following coronary angiography. A randomized controlled trial and review of the current literature Goldenberg I Shechter M Matetzky S Jonas M Adam M Pres H Elian D Agranat O Schwammenthal E Guetta V Eur Heart J 2004 25 212 218 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.11.011 14972421 N-Acetylcysteine versus fenoldopam mesylate to prevent contrast agent-associated nephrotoxicity Briguori C Colombo A Airoldi F Violante A Castelli A Balestrieri P Paolo Elia P Golia B Lepore S Riviezzo G J Am Coll Cardiol 2004 44 762 765 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.04.052 15312855 Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial Merten GJ Burgess WP Gray LV Holleman JH Roush TS Kowalchuk GJ Bersin RM Van Moore A Simonton CA 3rd Rittase RA JAMA 2004 291 2328 2334 10.1001/jama.291.19.2328 15150204 Adenosine antagonist theophylline prevents the reduction of glomerular filtration rate after contrast media application Erley CM Duda SH Schlepckow S Koehler J Huppert PE Strohmaier WL Bohle A Risler T Osswald H Kidney Int 1994 45 1425 1431 8072255 Nephrotoxicity from contrast media: attenuation with theophylline Katholi RE Taylor GJ McCann WP Woods WT Jr Womack KA McCoy CD Katholi CR Moses HW Mishkel GJ Lucore CL Radiology 1995 195 17 22 7892462 The nonselective adenosine antagonist theophylline does prevent renal dysfunction induced by radiographic contrast agents Kolonko A Wiecek A Kokot F J Nephrol 1998 11 151 156 9650124 Effects of dopamine and aminophylline on contrast-induced acute renal failure after coronary angioplasty in patients with preexisting renal insufficiency Abizaid AS Clark CE Mintz GS Dosa S Popma JJ Pichard AD Satler LF Harvey M Kent KM Leon MB Am J Cardiol 1999 83 260 263 A265 10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00833-9 10073832 Prevention of radiocontrast-media-induced nephropathy in patients with pre-existing renal insufficiency by hydration in combination with the adenosine antagonist theophylline Erley CM Duda SH Rehfuss D Scholtes B Bock J Muller C Osswald H Risler T Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999 14 1146 1149 10.1093/ndt/14.5.1146 10344353 Reduced incidence of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy in ICU patients under theophylline prophylaxis: a prospective comparison to series of patients at similar risk Huber W Jeschke B Page M Weiss W Salmhofer H Schweigart U Ilgmann K Reichenberger J Neu B Classen M Intensive Care Med 2001 27 1200 1209 10.1007/s001340101003 11534569 Effect of theophylline on contrast material-nephropathy in patients with chronic renal insufficiency: controlled, randomized, double-blinded study Huber W Ilgmann K Page M Hennig M Schweigart U Jeschke B Lutilsky L Weiss W Salmhofer H Classen M Radiology 2002 223 772 779 12034949 The role of theophylline in contrast-induced nephropathy: a case-control study Kapoor A Kumar S Gulati S Gambhir S Sethi RS Sinha N Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002 17 1936 1941 10.1093/ndt/17.11.1936 12401850 Effectiveness of theophylline prophylaxis of renal impairment after coronary angiography in patients with chronic renal insufficiency Huber W Schipek C Ilgmann K Page M Hennig M Wacker A Schweigart U Lutilsky L Valina C Seyfarth M Am J Cardiol 2003 91 1157 1162 10.1016/S0002-9149(03)00259-5 12745095 Managing the high-risk patient: experience with fenoldopam, a selective dopamine receptor agonist, in prevention of radiocontrast nephropathy during percutaneous coronary intervention Kini AA Sharma SK Rev Cardiovasc Med 2001 2 S19 S25 12439364 Fenoldopam mesy-late blocks reductions in renal plasma flow after radiocontrast dye infusion: a pilot trial in the prevention of contrast nephropathy Tumlin JA Wang A Murray PT Mathur VS Am Heart J 2002 143 894 903 10.1067/mhj.2002.122118 12040355 Fenoldopam mesylate for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a randomized controlled trial Stone GW McCullough PA Tumlin JA Lepor NE Madyoon H Murray P Wang A Chu AA Schaer GL Stevens M JAMA 2003 290 2284 2291 10.1001/jama.290.17.2284 14600187 Prophylactic hemodialysis after radiocontrast media in patients with renal insufficiency is potentially harmful Vogt B Ferrari P Schonholzer C Marti HP Mohaupt M Wiederkehr M Cereghetti C Serra A Huynh-Do U Uehlinger D Am J Med 2001 111 692 698 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00983-4 11747848 Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration for the treatment of contrast-induced acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary interventions Marenzi G Bartorelli AL Lauri G Assanelli E Grazi M Cam-podonico J Marana I Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003 58 59 64 10.1002/ccd.10373 12508197 The prevention of radiocontrast-agent-induced nephropathy by hemofiltration Marenzi G Marana I Lauri G Assanelli E Grazi M Campodonico J Trabattoni D Fabbiocchi F Montorsi P Bartorelli AL N Engl J Med 2003 349 1333 1340 10.1056/NEJMoa023204 14523141 Simultaneous hemodialysis during coronary angiography fails to prevent radiocontrast-induced nephropathy in chronic renal failure Frank H Werner D Lorusso V Klinghammer L Daniel WG Kun-zendorf U Ludwig J Clin Nephrol 2003 60 176 182 14524580 Radiocontrast-induced nephropathy in humans: role of renal vasoconstriction Weisberg LS Kurnik PB Kurnik BR Kidney Int 1992 41 1408 1415 1614056 Contrast-medium-induced acute renal failure Solomon R Kidney Int 1998 53 230 242 9453025 Pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy: experimental and clinical observations with an emphasis on the role of osmolality Rudnick MR Goldfarb S Rev Cardiovasc Med 2003 Suppl 5 S28 S33 Tubular nephrotoxicity of water-soluble iodinated contrast media Moreau JF Droz D Noel LH Leibowitch J Jungers P Michel JR Invest Radiol 1980 15 S54 S60 7203949 Proximal renal tubular vacuolization induced by iodinated contrast media, or so-called 'osmotic nephrosis' Moreau JF Noel LH Droz D Invest Radiol 1993 28 187 190 8444577 Oxidant mechanisms in toxic acute renal failure Baliga R Ueda N Walker PD Shah SV Am J Kidney Dis 1997 29 465 477 9041227 Reduced activity of antioxidant enzymes underlies contrast media-induced renal injury in volume depletion Yoshioka T Fogo A Beckman JK Kidney Int 1992 41 1008 1015 1513081 Radiocontrast medium-induced declines in renal function: a role for oxygen free radicals Bakris GL Lass N Gaber AO Jones JD Burnett JC Jr Am J Physiol 1990 258 F115 F120 2301588 Characteristics of response of renal vascular bed to contrast media. Evidence for vasoconstriction induced by renin-angiotensin system Caldicott WJ Hollenberg NK Abrams HL Invest Radiol 1970 5 539 547 4322860 Renal renin and hemodynamic responses to selective renal artery catheterization and angiography Katzberg RW Morris TW Burgener FA Kamm DE Fischer HW Invest Radiol 1977 12 381 388 914484 Pharmaco-kinetics of iopamidol in adults with renal failure Corradi A Menta R Cambi V Maccarini P Cerutti R Arzneimittelforschung 1990 40 830 832 2222559 Elimination of iohexol, a low osmolar nonionic contrast medium, by hemodialysis in patients with chronic renal failure Waaler A Svaland M Fauchald P Jakobsen JA Kolmannskog F Berg KJ Nephron 1990 56 81 85 2234253 Elimination of ioversol by hemodialysis Ueda J Furukawa T Takahashi S Sakaguchi K Acta Radiol 1996 37 826 829 8915301 Elimination of low-osmolality contrast media by hemodialysis Furukawa T Ueda J Takahashi S Sakaguchi K Acta Radiol 1996 37 966 971 8995475 Removal of contrast media by different extracorporeal treatments Schindler R Stahl C Venz S Ludat K Krause W Frei U Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001 16 1471 1474 10.1093/ndt/16.7.1471 11427643 N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: clinical trials and end points Hoffmann U Banas B Fischereder M Kramer BK Kidney Blood Press Res 2004 27 161 166 10.1159/000079804 15256811 The value of N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of radiocontrast agent-induced nephropathy seems questionable Hoffmann U Fischereder M Kruger B Drobnik W Kramer BK J Am Soc Nephrol 2004 15 407 410 10.1097/01.ASN.0000106780.14856.55 14747387 Prevention of acute renal failure in the critically ill Block CA Manning HL Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002 165 320 324 11818313