Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New and old contrast agents: Physiology and nephrotoxicity

  • Published:
Urologic radiology

Abstract

Newer contrast agents have recently been developed to improve patient safety and imaging quality. This survey examines renal handling of contrast media, mechanisms of contrast enhancement and questions related to renal toxicity. Methods to minimize contrast-medium-induced acute renal failure are suggested. The introduction of low osmolality contrast media promises reduced patient risk and improved renal enhancement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morris TW, Fischer HW: The pharmacology of intravascular radiocontrast media.Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 26:143–160, 1986

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Katzberg RW, Pabico RC, Morris TW, Hayakawa K, McKenna BA, Panner BJ, Ventura JA, Fischer HW: Effects of contrast media on renal function and sub-cellular morphology in the dog.Invest Radiol 21:64–70, 1986

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Newhouse JH: Fluid compartment distribution of intravenous iothalamate in the dog.Invest Radiol 12:364–367, 1977

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dean PB, Kivisaari L, Kormano M: The diagnostic potential of contrast enhancement pharmacokinetics.Invest Radiol 13:533–540, 1978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ekholm SE: Adverse reactions to intravascular and intrathecal contrast media. Iatrogenic diseases.Crit Rev Diagn Imaging (In press).

  6. Katzberg RW: Intravascular contrast media. In Putman CE, Ravin CE (eds):Diagnostic Imaging. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mudge GH: The maximal urinary concentration of diatrizoate.Invest Radiol 15 (Suppl):S67-S78, 1980

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Spataro RF, Fischer HW, Boylan L: Urography with low-osmolality contrast media. Comparative urinary excretion of Iopamidol, Hexabrix, and Diatrizoate.Invest Radiol 17:494–500, 1982

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Benness GT: Urographic contrast agents: a comparison of sodium and methylglucamine salts.Clin Radiol 21:150, 1970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sherwood T, Lavender JP: Does renal blood flow rise or fall in response to diatrizoate?Invest Radiol 5:327–328, 1969

    Google Scholar 

  11. Caldicott WJH, Hollenberg NK, Abrams HL: Characteristics of response of renal vascular bed to contrast media: evidence of vasoconstriction induced by renin-angiotensin system.Invest Radiol 5:539–547, 1970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Katzberg RW, Schulman G, Meggs LG, Caldicott WJH, Damiano MM, Hollenberg NK: Mechanism of the renal response to contrast medium in dogs. Decrease in renal function due to hypertonicity.Invest Radiol 18:74–80, 1983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris TW, Katzberg RW, Fischer HW: A comparison of the hemodynamic responses to metrizamide and meglumine/sodium diatrizoate in canine renal angiography.Invest Radiol 13:74–78, 1978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Törnquist C: Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in experimental and clinical nephroangiography. With special reference to ionic diatrizoate and metrizoate and nonionic iohexol. Thesis, Malmö, Sweden, 1985

  15. Morris TW, Harnish PP, Reece K, Katzberg RW: Tissue fluid shifts during renal arteriography with conventional and low osmolality agents.Invest Radiol 18:335–340, 1983

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gennari FJ, Kassirer JP: Osmotic diuresis.N Engl J Med 291:714–720, 1974

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gottschalk CW, Mylle M: Micropuncture study of pressures in proximal and distal tubules and peritubular capillaries of the rat kidney during osmotic diuresis.Am J Physiol 189:323–328, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  18. Katzberg RW, Morris TW, Schulman G, Caldicott WJH, Boyzan LM, Foley MJ, Spataro RF, Fischer HW: Reaction to intravenous contrast media. Part II: Acute renal response in euvolemic and dehydrated dogs.Radiology 147:331–334, 1983

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Harvey LA, Caldicott WJH: The influence of contrast medium dose on filtration fraction in the rabbit kidney.Invest Radiol 18:441–444, 1983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Byrd L, Sherman RL: Radiocontrast-induced acute renal failure: a clinical and pathophysiologic review.Medicine 58:270–279, 1979

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Holtas S, Törnquist C: Renal complications of contrast media. In Ansell G (ed):Complications in Radiology. (In press).

  22. Mudge GH: Nephrotoxicity of urographic contrast drugs.Kidney Int 18:540–552, 1980

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tejler L, Almén T, Holtas S: Proteinuria following nephroangiography. I. Clinical experiences.Acta Radiol (Diagn) 18:634–640, 1977

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Holtas S, Almén T, Hellsten S, Tejler L: Proteinuria following nephroangiography. VI. Comparison between metrizoate and metrizamide in man.Acta Radiol (Diagn) 21:491–494, 1980

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hartman HG: Enzymuria after administration of water-soluble x-ray contrast media. In Taenzer V, Zeitler E (eds):Contrast Media. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1983, pp 30–36

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moreau J-F, Droz D, Noel L-H, Leibowitch J, Jungers P, Michel J-R: Tubular nephrotoxicity of water-soluble iodinated contrast media.Invest Radiol 15 (Suppl):554–560, 1980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Humes HD, Hunt DA, White MD: Direct toxic effect of the radiocontrast agent diatrizoate on renal proximal tubule cells.Am J Physiol 252:F246-F255, 1987

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Spataro RF, Katzberg RW, Fischer HW, et al: High dose clinical urography with the low osmolality contrast agent Hexabrix: comparison with a conventional contrast agent.Radiology 162:9–14, 1987

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schrott KM, Behrends B, Klaus W, et al: Drig monitoring fur 50 BZW 100 ml omnipaque 300 in der ausscheidung urographie.Urologie B 25:24, 1985

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Box 694, 14642, Rochester, NY, USA

    Richard W. Katzberg M.D.

Authors
  1. Richard W. Katzberg M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katzberg, R.W. New and old contrast agents: Physiology and nephrotoxicity. Urol Radiol 10, 6–11 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02926527

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02926527

Key words

Search

Navigation