HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heinrich, M. C. Articles by Uder, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Heinrich, M. C. Articles by Uder, M.

Nephrotoxicity of Iso-osmolar Iodixanol Compared with Nonionic Low-osmolar Contrast Media: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials¹

¹ From the Institute of Radiology (M.C.H., W.B., M.U.) and Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (L.H.), University Hospital of Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 1, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; and Library of the University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany (V.M.). Received May 12, 2008; revision requested July 3; revision received July 18; accepted August 4; final version accepted August 6. Address correspondence to M.C.H.

Purpose: To compare the nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolar iodixanol with that of nonionic low-osmolar contrast media (CM) (LOCM) in randomized clinical trials.

Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted with a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Web of Science, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents Medizin, Cochrane Library (until August 2007), trial registers, conference proceedings, and reference lists to identify studies and with requests from all manufacturers of CM for unidentified studies. Randomized controlled trials assessing serum creatinine levels before and after intravascular application of iodixanol or LOCM were included. The primary outcome measures were the incidence of contrast medium–induced nephropathy (CIN) and change in serum creatinine levels.

Results: Twenty-five trials were included. Iodixanol did not significantly reduce the risk of CIN (relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61, 1.04; weighted mean difference in serum creatinine increase, 0.01 mg/dL [0.88 µmol/L]; 95% CI: –0.01, 0.03). There was no significant risk reduction after intravenous administration of the CM (RR, 1.08; 95% CI: 0.62, 1.89); subgroup with preexisting renal insufficiency (RR, 1.07; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.02) or after intraarterial administration (RR, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.01); subgroup with preexisting renal insufficiency (RR, 0.59; 95% CI: 0.33, 1.07). However, in patients with intraarterial administration and renal insufficiency, the risk of CIN was greater for iohexol than for iodixanol (RR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.68), whereas there was no difference between iodixanol and the other (noniohexol) LOCM (RR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.50, 1.78).

Conclusion: Iodixanol is not associated with a significantly reduced risk of CIN compared with the LOCM pooled together. However, in patients with intraarterial administration and renal insufficiency, iodixanol is associated with a reduced risk of CIN compared with iohexol, whereas no significant difference between iodixanol and other LOCM could be found.

© RSNA, 2009

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Capasso, S. D. Weisbord, M. C. Heinrich, and M. Uder Comment on Meta-analyses of Trials Comparing Contrast Media Radiology, July 1, 2009; 252(1): 316 - 318. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Ellis and R. H. Cohan Reducing the Risk of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Perspective on the Controversies Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2009; 192(6): 1544 - 1549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]