BACKGROUND: To determine whether gadolinium-based contrast media (CM) could be used safely for angiographies in patients with renal dysfunction we investigated renal function after gadobutrol exposure and compared the results with standard iodinated CM (iohexol) in a randomized clinical study. METHODS:Twenty-one patients (aged 67+/-11 years, nine female and 12 male) with severely impaired renal function [mean serum creatinine 3.2+/-1.3 mg/dl, mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 31+/-16 ml/min/1.73 m(2)] who needed to have angiography because of severe peripheral vascular disease, renal artery stenosis or aortic aneurysms were randomized to receive in a blinded manner either gadobutrol (Gadovist 1.0 mmol/ml) or iohexol (Omnipaque 350) as contrast agents. GFR was measured by CM clearance (Renalyzer) at baseline and 48 h after CM administration. The primary end point was the mean change of GFR from baseline at 48 h, the secondary one the incidence of CM-induced acute renal failure, defined as a decrease in GFR of >50% from baseline within 48 h of CM administration. RESULTS: In the gadobutrol group (n = 10) we observed a statistically significant decrease in GFR of 10.6+/-13.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) within 48 h after CM administration (P<0.05, paired t test). The incidence of CM-induced ARF amounted to 50%. In comparison, the iohexol group (n = 11) also showed a statistically significant GFR reduction of 8.7+/-8.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (P<0.05, paired t test), and of ARF by 45%. The percentile of differences of GFR decreases between the two groups was not significant (P = 0.70). No patient demonstrated other adverse effects of gadobutrol or iohexol administration, apart from GFR reduction. Despite the decline in GFR, no patient required haemodialysis in the 10 following days. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, gadolinium-based angiography showed no benefit over iohexol angiography with respect to preventing GFR reduction in patients with severely impaired renal function.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To determine whether gadolinium-based contrast media (CM) could be used safely for angiographies in patients with renal dysfunction we investigated renal function after gadobutrol exposure and compared the results with standard iodinated CM (iohexol) in a randomized clinical study. METHODS: Twenty-one patients (aged 67+/-11 years, nine female and 12 male) with severely impaired renal function [mean serum creatinine 3.2+/-1.3 mg/dl, mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 31+/-16 ml/min/1.73 m(2)] who needed to have angiography because of severe peripheral vascular disease, renal artery stenosis or aortic aneurysms were randomized to receive in a blinded manner either gadobutrol (Gadovist 1.0 mmol/ml) or iohexol (Omnipaque 350) as contrast agents. GFR was measured by CM clearance (Renalyzer) at baseline and 48 h after CM administration. The primary end point was the mean change of GFR from baseline at 48 h, the secondary one the incidence of CM-induced acute renal failure, defined as a decrease in GFR of >50% from baseline within 48 h of CM administration. RESULTS: In the gadobutrol group (n = 10) we observed a statistically significant decrease in GFR of 10.6+/-13.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) within 48 h after CM administration (P<0.05, paired t test). The incidence of CM-induced ARF amounted to 50%. In comparison, the iohexol group (n = 11) also showed a statistically significant GFR reduction of 8.7+/-8.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (P<0.05, paired t test), and of ARF by 45%. The percentile of differences of GFR decreases between the two groups was not significant (P = 0.70). No patient demonstrated other adverse effects of gadobutrol or iohexol administration, apart from GFR reduction. Despite the decline in GFR, no patient required haemodialysis in the 10 following days. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, gadolinium-based angiography showed no benefit over iohexol angiography with respect to preventing GFR reduction in patients with severely impaired renal function.
Authors: Andreas Boss; Petros Martirosian; Christina Schraml; Stephan Clasen; Michael Fenchel; Artistotelis Anastasiadis; Claus D Claussen; Philippe L Pereira; Fritz Schick Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-01-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fulvio Stacul; Aart J van der Molen; Peter Reimer; Judith A W Webb; Henrik S Thomsen; Sameh K Morcos; Torsten Almén; Peter Aspelin; Marie-France Bellin; Olivier Clement; Gertraud Heinz-Peer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: H Reinecke; M Fobker; J Wellmann; B Becke; J Fleiter; C Heitmeyer; G Breithardt; H-W Hense; R M Schaefer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2006-12-22 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Rachel Schor-Bardach; David C Alsop; Ivan Pedrosa; Stephanie A Solazzo; Xiaoen Wang; Robert P Marquis; Michael B Atkins; Meredith Regan; Sabina Signoretti; Robert E Lenkinski; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Leonardo Victor Barbosa Pereira; Maria Heloisa Massola Shimizu; Lina Paola Miranda Ruiz Rodrigues; Cláudia Costa Leite; Lúcia Andrade; Antonio Carlos Seguro Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gilbert Deray; Olivier Rouviere; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Bart Maes; Thierry Hannedouche; François Vrtovsnik; Claire Rigothier; Jean-Marie Billiouw; Paolo Campioni; Joaquin Ferreiros; Daniel Devos; Daniel Alison; François Glowacki; Jean-Jacques Boffa; Luis Marti-Bonmati Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 5.315