Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: Causal or coincident phenomenon?

Radiology

Volumn 267, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 106-118

  McDonald, Robert J ^a   McDonald, Jennifer S ^a   Bida, John P ^c   Carter, Rickey E ^b   Fleming, Chad J ^a   Misra, Sanjay ^a   Williamson, Eric E ^a   Kallmes, David F ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b Mayo Clinic   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST INDUCED NEPHROPATHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EXPOSURE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; INCIDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RACE DIFFERENCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEX DIFFERENCE;

AGED; CALIFORNIA; CAUSALITY; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; KIDNEY DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROPENSITY SCORE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84875409846     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121823     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Clinical practice: preventing nephropathy induced by contrast medium. N Engl J Med 2006;354(4):379-386.
2. Gleeson TG, Bulugahapitiya S. Contrastinduced nephropathy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183(6):1673-1689.
3. Solomon R, Dumouchel W. Contrast media and nephropathy: findings from systematic analysis and Food and Drug Administration reports of adverse effects. Invest Radiol 2006; 41(8):651-660.
4. Tepel M, Aspelin P, Lameire N. Contrast-induced nephropathy: a clinical and evidencebased approach. Circulation 2006;113(14): 1799-1806.
5. Tublin ME, Murphy ME, Tessler FN. Current concepts in contrast media-induced nephropathy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171(4): 933-939.
6. Katzberg RW, Newhouse JH. Intravenous contrast medium-induced nephrotoxicity: is the medical risk really as great as we have come to believe? Radiology 2010;256(1):21-28.
7. Rao QA, Newhouse JH. Risk of nephropathy after intravenous administration of contrast material: a critical literature analysis. Radiology 2006;239(2):392-397.
8. Baumgarten DA, Ellis JH. Contrast-induced nephropathy: contrast material not required? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(2):383-386.
9. Katzberg RW, Barrett BJ. Risk of iodinated contrast material-induced nephropathy with intravenous administration. Radiology 2007;243(3):622-628.
10. Bansal GJ, Darby M. Measurement of change in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with renal insufficiency after contrast-enhanced computed tomography: a case-control study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009;33(3):455-459.
11. Cramer BC, Parfrey PS, Hutchinson TA, et al. Renal function following infusion of radiologic contrast material: a prospective controlled study. Arch Intern Med 1985; 145(1):87-89.
12. Heller CA, Knapp J, Halliday J, O'Connell D, Heller RF. Failure to demonstrate contrast nephrotoxicity. Med J Aust 1991;155(5): 329-332.
13. Heller M, Husk G, Bowers W, et al. Contrast CT scans in the emergency department: is there really an increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes? Acad Emerg Med 2011; 18(Supplement s1):S4-S249.
14. Ng CS, Shaw AD, Bell CS, Samuels JA. Effect of IV contrast medium on renal function in oncologic patients undergoing CT in ICU. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(2):414-422.
15. Polena S, Yang S, Alam R, et al. Nephropathy in critically ill patients without preexisting renal disease. Proc West Pharmacol Soc 2005; 48:134-135.
16. Aulicky P, Mikulík R, Goldemund D, Reif M, Dufek M, Kubelka T. Safety of performing CT angiography in stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010;81(7):783-787.
17. Langner S, Stumpe S, Kirsch M, Petrik M, Hosten N. No increased risk for contrast-induced nephropathy after multiple CT perfusion studies of the brain with a nonionic, dimeric, iso-osmolal contrast medium. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29(8):1525-1529.
18. Lima FO, Lev MH, Levy RA, et al. Functional contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation of acute ischemic stroke does not increase the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31(5):817-821.
19. McGillicuddy EA, Schuster KM, Kaplan LJ, et al. Contrast-induced nephropathy in elderly trauma patients. J Trauma 2010;68(2): 294-297.
20. Oleinik A, Romero JM, Schwab K, et al. CT angiography for intracerebral hemorrhage does not increase risk of acute nephropathy. Stroke 2009;40(7):2393-2397.
21. Tremblay LN, Tien H, Hamilton P, et al. Risk and benefit of intravenous contrast in trauma patients with an elevated serum creatinine. J Trauma 2005;59(5):1162-1166; discussion 1166-1167.
22. Bruce RJ, Djamali A, Shinki K, Michel SJ, Fine JP, Pozniak MA. Background fluctuation of kidney function versus contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(3):711-718.
23. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Comin J, et al. Frequency of acute kidney injury following intravenous contrast administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology (in press).
24. Stacul F, van der Molen AJ, Reimer P, et al. Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2011;21(12):2527- 2541.
25. Kern EF, Maney M, Miller DR, et al. Failure of ICD-9-CM codes to identify patients with comorbid chronic kidney disease in diabetes. Health Serv Res 2006;41(2):564-580.
26. Quach S, Blais C, Quan H. Administrative data have high variation in validity for recording heart failure. Can J Cardiol 2010; 26(8):306-312.
27. Chen G, Khan N, Walker R, Quan H. Validating ICD coding algorithms for diabetes mellitus from administrative data. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;89(2):189-195.
28. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005;43(11):1130-1139.
29. McCullough PA, Bertrand ME, Brinker JA, Stacul F. A meta-analysis of the renal safety of isosmolar iodixanol compared with lowosmolar contrast media. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48(4):692-699.
30. Elicker BM, Cypel YS, Weinreb JC. IV contrast administration for CT: a survey of practices for the screening and prevention of contrast nephropathy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(6):1651-1658.
31. Waikar SS, Liu KD, Chertow GM. Diagnosis, epidemiology and outcomes of acute kidney injury. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3(3):844- 861.
32. Davidson C, Stacul F, McCullough PA, et al. Contrast medium use. Am J Cardiol 2006;98(6A):42K-58K.
33. Waikar SS, Bonventre JV. Creatinine kinetics and the definition of acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20(3):672-679.
34. Molitoris BA, Levin A, Warnock DG, et al. Improving outcomes from acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007;18(7):1992-1994.
35. Blackstone EH. Comparing apples and oranges. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 123(1):8-15.
36. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci 2010;25(1):1-21.
37. Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 1968;24(2):295- 313.
38. Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 2004;23(19):2937-2960.
39. Stuart EA, Rubin DB. Matching methods for causal inference: designing observational studies. In: Osborne J, ed. Best practices in quantitative methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 2007; 155-176.
40. Hirano K, Imbens GW, Ridder G. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 2003;71(4):1161-1189.
41. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Analytic strategies to adjust confounding using exposure propensity scores and disease risk scores: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and short-term mortality in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161(9):891-898.
42. van der Wal WM, Geskus RB. IPW: an R package for inverse probability weighting. J Stat Softw 2011;43(13):1-23.
43. Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. Improved observational method for studying therapeutic efficacy: suggestive evidence that lidocaine prophylaxis prevents death in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 1981;246(21):2455-2459.
44. Luo Z, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ. Applying propensity score methods in medical research: pitfalls and prospects. Med Care Res Rev 2010;67(5):528-554.
45. Newhouse JH, Kho D, Rao QA, Starren J. Frequency of serum creatinine changes in the absence of iodinated contrast material: implications for studies of contrast nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(2):376-382.
46. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2012.
47. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. R package version 2.2-11. http://gking.harvard. edu/matchit. Accessed March 26, 2012.
48. Ridgeway G, McCaffrey D, Morral A, Burgette L, Griffin BA. Toolkit for weighting and analysis of nonequivalent groups: a tutorial for the twang package. [Santa Monica, Calif]: RAND. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ twang/vignettes/twang.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2012.
49. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947;12(2): 153-157.
50. Moussa MA. Testing marginal homogeneity in square tables; with emphasis on matched data. Comput Programs Biomed 1985;19(2- 3):239-247.
51. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39(2 Suppl 1):S1-S266.
52. Pocock SJ, Ware JH. Translating statistical findings into plain English. Lancet 2009; 373(9679):1926-1928.
53. Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 1994;121(3):200-206.
54. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986;292(6522):746-750.
55. Stevens LA, Coresh J, Greene T, Levey AS. Assessing kidney function: measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate. N Engl J Med 2006;354(23):2473-2483.
56. Barrett BJ, Katzberg RW, Thomsen HS, et al. Contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing computed tomography: a double-blind comparison of iodixanol and iopamidol. Invest Radiol 2006; 41(11):815-821.
57. Carraro M, Malalan F, Antonione R, et al. Effects of a dimeric vs a monomeric nonionic contrast medium on renal function in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Eur Radiol 1998;8(1):144-147.
58. Heinrich MC, Häberle L, Müller V, Bautz W, Uder M. Nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolar iodixanol compared with nonionic low-osmolar contrast media: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiology 2009;250(1):68- 86.
59. Kuhn MJ, Chen N, Sahani DV, et al. The PREDICT study: a randomized double-blind comparison of contrast-induced nephropathy after low- or isoosmolar contrast agent exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(1):151- 157.
60. Berthelsen CL. Evaluation of coding data quality of the HCUP National Inpatient Sample. Top Health Inf Manage 2000;21(2):10- 23.