BACKGROUND: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study to compare the renal effects of iomeprol-400 and iodixanol-320 in patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease undergoing contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography of the liver. METHODS:One hundred forty-eight patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, ie, serum creatinine (SCr) > or =1.5 mg/dL (132.6 micromol/L) and/or calculated creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min, undergoing contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography of the liver were randomized to equi-iodine doses (40 gI) of either the low-osmolar agent iomeprol-400 (400 mgI/mL, 726 mOsm/kg, N = 76) or the isotonic agent iodixanol-320 (320 mgI/mL, 290 mOsm/kg, N = 72), injected intravenously at 4 mL/S, followed by a bolus of 20 mL normal saline solution at the same rate. SCr was obtained at screening, baseline and at 48 to 72 hours postdose. SCr measurements and CrCl calculations were performed by a central laboratory. Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) was defined as an absolute SCr increase of > or =0.5 mg/dL (44.2 micromol/L) from baseline to 48 to 72 hours postdose. Mean SCr changes from baseline were also assessed. A Renal Safety Review Board comprised 3 medical experts reviewed the renal safety data, demographics, medical history, CIN risk factors, concomitant medications, and hydration status of each subject in a blinded manner. RESULTS: The 2 study groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, concomitant nephrotoxins, hydration status, and total iodine dose; however, the iomeprol-400 group showed a significantly higher proportion of patients with diabetes mellitus (P = 0.02). Baseline SCr was 1.7 +/- 0.6 mg/dL (150.3 +/- 53.0 micromol/L) in the iomeprol-400 group and 1.7 +/- 0.7 mg/dL (150.3 +/- 61.9 micromol/L) in the iodixanol-320 group (P = 0.87). Predose CrCl was 41.5 +/- 13.1 mL/Min in the iomeprol-400 group and 43.0 +/- 13.3 mL/Min in the iodixanol-320 group (P = 0.49). Five of 72 patient receiving iodixanol-320 (6.9%) and none of the patients receiving iomeprol-400 showed an increase of > or =0.5 mg/dL (44.2 micromol/L) from baseline [P = 0.025, 95% CI (-12.8%, -1.1%)]. The mean SCr change from baseline was significantly higher (P = 0.017 ANCOVA) after iodixanol-320 (0.06 +/- 0.27) than after iomeprol-400 (-0.04 +/- 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CIN was significantly higher after IV administration of iodixanol-320 than iomeprol-400. The mean rise in SCr from baseline was also higher in patients receiving iodixanol.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study to compare the renal effects of iomeprol-400 and iodixanol-320 in patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease undergoing contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography of the liver. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, ie, serum creatinine (SCr) > or =1.5 mg/dL (132.6 micromol/L) and/or calculated creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min, undergoing contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography of the liver were randomized to equi-iodine doses (40 gI) of either the low-osmolar agent iomeprol-400 (400 mgI/mL, 726 mOsm/kg, N = 76) or the isotonic agent iodixanol-320 (320 mgI/mL, 290 mOsm/kg, N = 72), injected intravenously at 4 mL/S, followed by a bolus of 20 mL normal saline solution at the same rate. SCr was obtained at screening, baseline and at 48 to 72 hours postdose. SCr measurements and CrCl calculations were performed by a central laboratory. Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) was defined as an absolute SCr increase of > or =0.5 mg/dL (44.2 micromol/L) from baseline to 48 to 72 hours postdose. Mean SCr changes from baseline were also assessed. A Renal Safety Review Board comprised 3 medical experts reviewed the renal safety data, demographics, medical history, CIN risk factors, concomitant medications, and hydration status of each subject in a blinded manner. RESULTS: The 2 study groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, concomitant nephrotoxins, hydration status, and total iodine dose; however, the iomeprol-400 group showed a significantly higher proportion of patients with diabetes mellitus (P = 0.02). Baseline SCr was 1.7 +/- 0.6 mg/dL (150.3 +/- 53.0 micromol/L) in the iomeprol-400 group and 1.7 +/- 0.7 mg/dL (150.3 +/- 61.9 micromol/L) in the iodixanol-320 group (P = 0.87). Predose CrCl was 41.5 +/- 13.1 mL/Min in the iomeprol-400 group and 43.0 +/- 13.3 mL/Min in the iodixanol-320 group (P = 0.49). Five of 72 patient receiving iodixanol-320 (6.9%) and none of the patients receiving iomeprol-400 showed an increase of > or =0.5 mg/dL (44.2 micromol/L) from baseline [P = 0.025, 95% CI (-12.8%, -1.1%)]. The mean SCr change from baseline was significantly higher (P = 0.017 ANCOVA) after iodixanol-320 (0.06 +/- 0.27) than after iomeprol-400 (-0.04 +/- 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CIN was significantly higher after IV administration of iodixanol-320 than iomeprol-400. The mean rise in SCr from baseline was also higher in patients receiving iodixanol.