contents TIB 17 SA JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY • October 2005 Abstract How contrast medium-induced nephropa- thy (CIN) comes about is poorly under- stood, although CIN is a common cause of acute renal failure. Hitherto, the various studies performed have led to dif- ferent interpretations and partially contra- dictory conclusions. This article aimed to review the mechanisms underlying CIN and to outline existing data obtained with the newer iodinated agents in patients with pre-existing renal failure. Osmolality, which has received considerable attention, is but one of several physico-chemical properties of contrast media (CM). The more recently developed iso-osmolar CM are dimers, not monomers as the widely used non-ionic low osmolar CM. Thus, in spite of them being iso-osmolar, they have physicochemical features different from other CM, e.g. in terms of viscosity (> 5 fold greater than plasma viscosity), which may be of considerable pathophysiologic and clinical importance. Many experimen- tal studies provide evidence for greater per- turbation in renal function with iso-osmo- lar CM compared with non-ionic low- osmolar CM. Conversely, some clinical tri- als indicate an advantage of the iso-osmo- lar CM, although others do not. In this review, the possible causes of CIN are high- lighted, including altered rheological prop- erties, perturbation of renal haemodynam- ics, regional hypoxia, auto- and paracrine factors (adenosine, endothelin, reactive oxygen species) and direct cytotoxic effects. It is concluded that caution must be taken to avoid a false sense of security with the use of iso-osmolar CM. Introduction This review critically surveys recent clinical studies with regard to contrast medium-induced nephropathy (CIN) and focuses on mechanisms believed to mediate CIN, which implies impairment of renal function occurring within 3 days of the intravascular administration of contrast medium (CM) and the absence of an alter- native aetiology.1,2 An increase in serum creatinine by more than 25% or 44 µmol/l (0.5 mg/100 ml, within 48 - 72 hours of contrast administration) is often taken as a marker for the occurrence of CIN. 3-6 The serum creatinine concentration typically peaks on the second or third day after exposure to CM and usually returns to the baseline value within 2 weeks.7,8 Generally, CIN is reversible. Nevertheless, the use of CM increases in- hospital morbidity, mortality and costs, in particular in those rare cases where dialysis is required. Thus, despite the small relative risk of developing adverse effects, CIN is the third leading cause of acute renal failure in patients who have been admitted, accounting for 10% of all cases.9,10 The inci- dence of nephropathy induced by low- osmolar CM is low in the general popula- tion and has been calculated to be less than 2%.11,12 In selected subgroups of patients, however, like those with pre-existing renal insufficiency or diabetes mellitus or a com- bination of both, the incidence is signifi- cantly higher, in the range of 12 - 50%10,13-17 requiring transient dialysis or progress to end-stage renal disease.18 Risk factors By far the greatest risk of developing CIN is pre-existing renal impairment com- bined with diabetes, dehydration, or a com- bination of both.19 Remarkably, however, ORIGINAL ARTICLE Potential mechanisms behind contrast medium-induced nephropathy P B Persson D Med, D Med Habil A Patzak D Med, D Med Habil Institute of Physiology Humboldt University Berlin, Germany Table I. Osmolality and viscosity for various CMs. Note differences in iodine concentrations Physicochemical properties of CM Iodine concentration Viscosity Osmolality Generic name (mg/ml) (mPA’S at 37°C) (at 37°C mOsm/kg H2O) Iopamidol 300 5.25 636 Iopromid 300 4.6 610 Iohexol 300 5.7 690 Ioxaglate 320 7.5 600 Iomeprol 300 4.5 521 Iodixanol 320 11.4 290 Diatrizoat 292 4.0 1500 Iopentol 300 6.5 640 Iotrolan 300 8.1 320 pg17-21 9/28/05 2:32 PM Page 17 18 SA JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY • October 2005 diabetes mellitus per se without renal insufficiency is not a risk factor.15 Additional risk factors are: dosage of CM and type of CM, congestive heart failure, old age, hypertension, route of administra- tion of CM, and the use of other nephro- toxic drugs.13,20 Any condition associated with decreased effective circulating volume enhances vulnerability with regard to CIN.19 Of course, other causes of acute renal failure, such as atheromatous embolic disease, ischaemia, prerenal azotemia, sep- sis, or other nephrotoxins should always be considered, particularly if CIN is suspected in a patient without known risk factors. For example, CIN might be mistaken for cho- lesterol crystal embolisation after intravas- cular catheterisation. When comparing the renal effects of different vascular contrast agents in patients with normal renal function, there are inconclusive results in the literature. Patients with no pre-existing renal impair- ments have been shown to be highly resis- tant to CIN, even when using ionic high- osmolar CM.3,21 Unfortunately, though, patients with pre-existing renal impair- ments are to a large extent also the patients requiring angiography22 and in this sub- population high doses of CM increases the risk for CIN.23 Substance groups For over 50 years the various available CM have been based on triiodobenzene. Their characteristics vary due to the osmo- lality and ionicity of the product. Earlier, during the time of high-osmolar CM (which have osmolalities approximately 6 times higher than plasma found in broad clinical use), it made sense to differentiate CM with regard to osmolality. However, already then it was obvious that many of the side-effects were actually caused by the electric charge. The current use of low- osmolar CM (which still have considerably higher osmolality than plasma) and iso- osmolar CM is widespread and it may be that the subdivision of CM according to their osmolality should be reconsidered. This is so since iso-osmolar CM are dimers, thus revealing greater viscosities than the monomeric low-osmolar CM (Table I). As outlined below, this difference can be of importance for renal and systemic haemo- dynamics. Clinical studies Use of the more modern CM that are low- or iso-osmolar has reduced the likeli- hood of CIN compared with high-osmolar CM. In a prospective, randomised study involving 1 196 patients undergoing angio- cardiography, Rudnick et al.5 found no dif- ferences in incidence of nephropathy between patients receiving iohexol (low- osmolar, 780 mOsm/kg H2O) and patients receiving diatrizoate (high-osmolar, 1 870 mOsm/kg H2O) among low-risk patients (patients without diabetes who had a base- line serum creatinine concentration of less than 1.5 mg/dl (133 µmol/l)). However, in patients without diabetes whose serum cre- atinine concentrations were higher than 1.5 mg/dl, the incidence of nephropathy was reduced from 27.0 to 12.2% with the use of iohexol.5 For patients with diabetes, the incidence was reduced from 47.7 to 33.3%. Overall, patients receiving high-osmolar CM were 3.3 times as likely to develop CIN as those receiving low-osmolar CM. For all practical purposes, all the newer low- osmolar or iso-osmolar agents are consid- ered to be the agents of choice in patients at higher than usual risk for the development of CIN.19 Some comparative studies in patients with pre-existing renal impairment have shown similar susceptibility for CIN with both nonionic monomeric and nonionic dimeric CM,24-26 whereas other trials have concluded that iso-osmolar CM have advantages with regard to the occurrence of CIN in renally impaired patients.1,27 In par- ticular Aspelin et al.1 in the NEPHRIC study concluded that iohexol (N = 65) was significantly more nephrotoxic than the nonionic dimer iodixanol (N = 64) in patients with pre-existing chronic renal failure undergoing coronary or aortofemoral angiography. These results have received considerable attention due to the conclusions of the authors, but also due to some serious shortcomings of the study design. Previous studies have shown that critical factors for the susceptibility of CIN are duration of diabetes, metabolic status and renal function before CM injection.8 The investigated groups in the study of Aspelin and co-workers1 were significantly different in all of these parameters and thus the outcome of the study is more likely to reflect the differences of the studied popu- lations rather than differences of the administered CM with regard to CIN. In addition, the hydration regimen was not pursued with vigour, as indicated by con- siderable variance in fluid intake. The conclusion of the NEPHRIC study that the use of iso-osmolar CM, as opposed to low-osmolar CM, results in reduced incidence of CIN is not in line with our current understanding of CIN, as men- tioned below, and contradicts studies in which the use of iso-osmolar CM conferred no advantage.28,29 In light of the controversy whether patients at risk actually benefit from iso-osmolar CM1,27 or not24-26 and the experimental data on physiologic/patho- physiologic renal mechanisms that do not support any beneficial effects of iso-osmo- lar CM, the CM of choice still remains an open question.30 Mechanisms of CIN There is a particularly vulnerable kid- ney region in the deeper portion of the outer medulla. This is an area remote from the vasa recta that supply the renal medulla with blood. The reason for the vulnerabili- ty of the outer medullary portion of the nephron is the relative high oxygen require- ments due to salt reabsorption. In this area of the kidney, the limbs of the loop of Henle exhibit hypoxic damage, for instance by perfusion with erythrocyte free solu- tion.31 Oxygen delivery to the peripheral tissues can be impaired by CM due to an increase oxygen affinity of haemoglobin.32 It is not fully clear what the underlying mechanism is with regard to CIN. Several suggestions have been put forward and it is widely held that a combination of various mechanisms need to act in concert to cause CIN.19 Among these mechanisms, a reduc- tion in renal perfusion caused by a direct effect of CM on the kidney and toxic effects on the tubular cells are generally recognised as important. However, the pathophysio- logical relevance of direct effects of CM on ORIGINAL ARTICLE pg17-21 9/28/05 2:32 PM Page 18 19 SA JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY • October 2005 tubular cells remains disputed,19 as are the other proposed aetiologies. By adding CM to the perfusate of the kidney, hypoxic injury to the region at risk is enhanced, probably by increasing renal vascular resistance.33 It has been shown that an iso-osmolar dimer with high viscosity (iodixanol) compromises blood flow to all regions of the kidney to a greater extent than low-osmolar, and even high-osmolar CM.29 However, it must be kept in mind that this decrease in perfusion was accom- panied by profound systemic effects of iodixanol. Blood pressure in this study dropped considerably.29 In fact, it is well known that local renal hypoxia can be aggravated by the systemic effects of some CM, such as transiently reduced cardiac output,34 and suboptimal pulmonary per- fusion-ventilation relationship.35 Another study36 supports the particular potency of dimeric CM in causing renal hypoxia – the iso-osmolar CM iotrolan was also found to impair local pO2 to a greater extent than the low-osmolar CM iopro- mide. The tubuloglomerular feedback (TGF) is a powerful mechanism in the control of renal vascular resistance and glomerular fil- tration and has often been taken as an explanation for the development of CIN. Specifically, it is believed that increased osmotic pressure brought about by CM elicits renal ischaemia. The macula densa cells of the thick ascending limb mediate the TGF by sensing Na+, K+, and Cl- concentrations in the tubular fluid via the Na+-K+-2Cl- cotrans- porter. This transporter is effectively blocked by furosemide. The affinity for Cl- is very low, so in a physiological setting there will always be enough Na+ and K+ to keep the system running; Cl- is the limiting factor.37,38 A widespread explanation for the development of CIN is that hyperosmotic CM causes an increased osmotic gradient at the macula densa, which activates the TGF and subsequently compromises renal blood flow and glomerular filtration. Obviously, this chain of events is not a like- ly explanation for CIN, and this has been shown already by pioneer experiments with retrograde perfusions of the tubule. In this setting, osmolality has no effect on the TGF.37,38 The ruling out of the osmotic diuresis theory is further supported by experiments using mannitol, an osmotic diuretic. Increases in osmolality, such as after mannitol infusion or after CM appli- cation, decrease NaCl concentration at the macula densa, however, simultaneously increasing tubular flow. Therefore, the resulting net change in the amount of NaCl passing the macula densa is negligible.39 Moreover, furosemide, a known blocker of the TGF, does not decrease serum creati- nine after application of CM, which is usu- ally the parameter taken to indicate CIN.2 Blocking the transport using furosemide should dramatically lower local oxygen consumption and alleviate the reduced oxygen supply. In fact, this has been demonstrated to occur in experiments in rats showing that outer medullary pO2 is elevated after furosemide.40 However, furosemide given just before angiography fails to limit increases in serum creatinine after CM application, indicating that yet other mechanisms are involved in CIN.2 Among the often-discussed mecha- nisms, endothelin and adenosine have received much attention. The effects of endothelin on vascular beds is very depen- dent upon the receptor subtype activation, but both subtypes of receptors (ET-A and ET-B) are thought to mediate the vascular actions of endothelins in human blood ves- sels.41 Endothelin has been suggested as a key element in the scenario leading to CIN because of the elevated endothelin levels in plasma and urine that are found after CM application.42-44 Further support for the role of endothelin in CIN is derived from the observed enhancement of endothelin tran- scription and release from endothelial cells in response to CM.45 Finally, in patients with impaired renal function, the increase in endothelin after giving CM is exaggerat- ed.46 A potential beneficial effect of endothelin in preventing CIN may be mediated by the ET-B mediated effects, such as vasorelaxation. Thus, a selective ET- A receptor blockade could prove to be effective in the prevention of CIN. Indeed, a positive effect of ET-A selective blockade on the renal outer medullary hypoxic response to CM has been reported in the normal rat.47 However, when both ET-A and ET-B receptors are blocked in humans receiving CM, serum creatinine concentra- tion rises to a greater extent than in patients receiving placebo and the CIN incidence is significantly increased in the patients who received combined ET-A and ET-B block- ade.48 Diabetes mellitus is among the most important risk factors for CIN and diabet- ics often have endothelial dysfunction of renal vessels. In this setting, NO is sup- pressed in the renal microvasculature which contributes to the endothelial dys- function.49 Superoxide is a scavenger of NO and may cause the attenuated NO activity found in the diabetic renal microvascula- ture. Indeed, superoxide production has been found to be increased in renal cortical tissue from diabetic rats50 and the afferent and efferent arteriolar vasoconstrictor response to NOS inhibition is impaired.51 Taken together, superoxide, and perhaps other reactive oxygen species (ROS) may be crucial in the development of CIN. Since ROS are extracellular signalling molecules, they may be significant in mediating the part of the endothelin effects.57 Due to the possible role of ROS in CIN, clinical trials have been undertaken to pre- vent CIN by scavenging ROS.52-55 In these trials, N-acetylcysteine was given and showed a positive outcome in four stud- ies.53-56 However, this recommendation is by no means unequivocal.57 In analogy to endothelin, a prominent role in causing CIN has also been suggested for adenosine. The renal vasculature of dia- betics reveals an enhanced sensitivity to adenosine, thus it has been suggested that adenosine is a particularly important con- tributor to CIN in patients with this meta- bolic disorder.58 However, the role for adenosine in CIN may be considerably overestimated. For instance, in normal rats,59 A1-receptor blockade fails to alleviate medullary hypoperfusion and hypoxia in response to CM. Moreover, the general reduction in renal plasma flow and GFR caused by CM is not attributable to enhanced adenosine action.60 CM can also have direct cytotoxic effects on renal tubular cells. A perturba- tion of mitochondrial enzyme activity and mitochondrial membrane potential is found under ex vivo conditions in a proxi- mal tubule cell line.61 Noteably, low-osmo- ORIGINAL ARTICLE pg17-21 9/28/05 2:32 PM Page 19 lar monomeric CM cause less damage than iso-osmolar dimeric CM and ionic com- pounds reveal the most profound effect.61 In the more distal segments of the kidney, CM can cause apoptosis, as indicated in another cell line model.62 Apoptosis may be brought about by hypoxic damage63 and by a direct influence on these cells.62 A quite simple mechanism that seems to be of paramount importance for the development of CIN has hitherto attracted rather little attention: the rhelogical prop- erties of CM. The viscosity of the fluid is of particular importance with regard to the renal vascular bed, since the length of the capillaries that supply the renal medulla with blood are extremely long. Although the vasa recta have the same diameter as usual capillaries, they are several cm long. This increases vascular resistance, as indi- cated by Poiseuille’s law: (Equation 1) R=η *8*1/Π*r4 (η is viscosity, l refers to the length of the vessel and r is the radius). The viscosity of the blood flowing through the vasa recta is maintained very low in order to minimise the large resis- tance caused by capillary length. This is brought about by the Fåhraeus-Lindqvist effect and plasma skimming. The Fåhraeus-Lindqvist effect guarantees that blood viscosity in the capillary is very low. In fact, it is not much higher than plasma viscosity. This is so due to the high-flow velocity of the erythrocytes flowing through capillaries (single line flow). In effect haematocrit is very low in these ves- sels. The low haematocrit is further brought about by plasma skimming: The afferent arterioles separate from the interlobular arteries at a right angle. Since the erythro- cytes are concentrated in the centre of the interlobular arteries (laminar flow), the plasma-rich blood near the endothelium is skimmed off into the juxtamedullary affer- ent arterioles. Taking these general considerations in to account, it is clear that iso-osmolar CM are not a priori superior to low-osmolar agents, since the dimeric iso-osmolar CM have very high viscosities. Therefore, iso- osmolar CM should impair renal medullary blood flow to a greater extent than low-osmolar agents, which indeed seems to be the case, as indicated by the particularly reduced pO2 levels caused by iso-osmolar CM (Fig. 1). Augmented fluid viscosity caused by dimeric iso-osmolar CM may be of even more importance in the renal tubule. Under normal conditions, tubular fluid is of lower viscosity than plasma, as the ultra- filtrate contains very few plasma proteins. Use of dimeric iso-osmolar CM will increase tubular fluid viscosity dramatical- ly and thereby increase the resistance to flow in renal tubules.64 In consequence, renal interstitial pressure may take on val- ues as high as 50 mmHg (Fig. 2). Such pres- sure will dramatically decrease renal medullary flow and decrease GFR. Volume expanding the patient before application of CM will markedly alleviate this effect since the CM will not become as concentrated in the renal collecting ducts. This may be the mechanism responsible for the generally accepted best way to prevent CIN: peripro- cedural hydration.2,65,66 Conclusions The current understanding of CIN development now includes the rheological properties of a fluid. Resistance depends on fluid viscosity, not osmolality (Poiseuille’s law). Thus, perhaps too much attention has been directed to the osmolality of different CM, while neglecting the impact of other physicochemical properties. Well-con- trolled animal studies cannot confirm that iso-osmolar CM are superior with regard to the occurrence of CIN. The contrary seems to be the case. References 1. Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson SG, et al. Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiogra- phy. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 491 - 499. 2. Solomon R, Werner C, Mann D, et al. Effects of saline, mannitol, and furosemide to prevent acute decreases in renal function induced by radiocon- trast agents. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1416-1420. 3. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS, Vavasour HM, et al. Contrast nephropathy in patients with impaired renal function: high versus low osmolar media. Kidney Int 1992; 41: 1274-1279. 4. Manske CL, Sprafka JM, Strony JT, et al. Contrast nephropathy in azotemic diabetic patients under- going coronary angiography. Am J Med 1990; 89: 615-620. 5. Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L, et al. Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. The Iohexol Cooperative Study. Kidney Int 1995; 47: 254-261. 6. Taliercio CP, Vlietstra RE, Ilstrup DM, et al. A ran- domized comparison of the nephrotoxicity of iopamidol and diatrizoate in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 17: 384-390. 7. Levy EM, Viscoli CM, Horwitz RI. The effect of acute renal failure on mortality. A cohort analysis. JAMA 1996; 275: 1489-1494. 8. Waybill MM, Waybill PN. Contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity: identification of patients at risk and algorithms for prevention. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001; 12: 3-9. 9. Hou SH, Bushinsky DA, Wish JB et al. Hospital- acquired renal insufficiency: a prospective study. Am J Med 1983; 74: 243-248. 10. Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, et al. Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2002; 105: 2259-2264. 11. Berg KJ. Nephrotoxicity related to contrast media. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2000; 34: 317-322. 12. Nikolsky E, Aymong ED, Dangas G, et al. Radiocontrast nephropathy: identifying the high- risk patient and the implications of exacerbating renal function. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2003; 4: Suppl 1:S7-S14. 13. Berns AS. Nephrotoxicity of contrast media. Kidney Int 1989; 36: 730-740. 14. McCullough PA, Wolyn R, Rocher LL, et al. Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: inci- dence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. Am J Med 1997; 103: 368-375. 15. Parfrey PS, Griffiths SM, Barrett BJ, et al. Contrast material-induced renal failure in patients with dia- betes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both. A prospective controlled study. N Engl J Med 1989; ORIGINAL ARTICLE 20 SA JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY • October 2005 Fig. 1. Medullary hypoxia induced by CM com- pared with Ringer’s solution. Reduction in pO2 is greatest for iotrolan (iso-osmolal non-ionic dimer) followed by ioxaglate (low-osmolal ionic dimer). Iopromide (low-osmolal monomer) had the least effect of the CM. Data from Liss et al.36 Fig. 2. Renal tubular pressures after injection of an iso-osmolar non-ionic CM, iotrolan. (Data from Ueda et al. Acta Radiol 1998; 39: 90 - 95). 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 pg17-21 9/28/05 2:32 PM Page 20 21 SA JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY • October 2005 1199:: 143-149. 16. Rich MW, Crecelius CA. Incidence, risk factors, and clinical course of acute renal insufficiency after cardiac catheterization in patients 70 years of age or older. A prospective study. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1237-1242. 17. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Radiographic contrast media. BJU Int 2000; 86: Suppl 1, 1-10. 18. Gruberg L, Pinnow E, Flood R, et al. Incidence, management, and outcome of coronary artery per- foration during percutaneous coronary interven- tion. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86: 680-682. 19. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Contrast media and the kidney. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 513-518. 20. Deray G, Cacoub P, Jacquiaud C, et al. Renal toler- ance for ioxaglate in patients with chronic renal failure. Radiology 1991; 179: 395-397. 21. Schwab SJ, Hlatky MA, Pieper KS, et al. Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of a nonionic and an ionic radiographic contrast agent. N Engl J Med 1989; 19: 149-153. 22. Solomon R. Contrast-medium-induced acute renal failure. Kidney Int 1998; 53: 230-242. 23. Cigarroa RG, Lange RA, Williams RH, et al. Dosing of contrast material to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with renal disease. Am J Med 1989; 86: 649-652 24. Andrew E, Berg KJ, Nossen JO, et al. Renal effects of iodixanol in patients: a comparison with other radiographic contrast media. Acad Radiol 1996; 33:: Suppl 2: S440-S443. 25. 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, ran- domized clinical trial. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 144-147. 26. Jakobsen JA. Renal experience with Visipaque. Eur Radiol 1996; 66:: Suppl 2: S16-S19. 27. Chalmers N, Jackson RW. Comparison of iodix- anol and iohexol in renal impairment. Br J Radiol 1999; 72: 701-703. 28. Deray G, Bagnis C, Jacquiaud C, et al. Renal effects of low and isoosmolar contrast media on renal hemodynamic in a normal and ischemic dog kid- ney. Invest Radiol 1999; 34: 1-4. 29. Lancelot E, Idee JM, Couturier V, et al. Influence of the viscosity of iodixanol on medullary and cor- tical blood flow in the rat kidney: a potential cause of nephrotoxicity. J Appl Toxicol 1999; 19: 341-346. 30. Sandler CM. Contrast-agent-induced acute renal dysfunction—is iodixanol the answer? N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 551-553. 31. Brezis M, Rosen S, Silva P, et al. Selective vulnera- bility of the medullary thick ascending limb to anoxia in the isolated perfused rat kidney. J Clin Invest 1984; 73: 182-190. 32. Kim SJ, Salem MR, Joseph NJ, et al. Contrast media adversely affect oxyhemoglobin dissociation. Anesth Analg 1990; 71: 73-76. 33. Heyman SN, Brezis M, Reubinoff CA, et al. Acute renal failure with selective medullary injury in the rat. J Clin Invest 1988; 82: 401-412. 34. Dawson P. Cardiovascular effects of contrast agents. Am J Cardiol 1989; 64: 2E-9E. 35. Neagley SR, Vought MB, Weidner WA, et al. Transient oxygen desaturation following radi- ographic contrast medium administration. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 1094-1097. 36. Liss P, Nygren A, Erikson U, et al. Injection of low and iso-osmolar contrast medium decreases oxy- gen tension in the renal medulla. Kidney Int 1998; 53: 698-702 37. Briggs JP, Schnermann J, Wright FS. Failure of tubule fluid osmolarity to affect feedback regula- tion of glomerular filtration. Am J Physiol 1980; 239: F427-F432. 38. Schnermann J, Ploth DW, Hermle M. Activation of tubulo-glomerular feedback by chloride transport. Pflugers Arch 1976; 362: 229-240. 39. Leyssac PP, Holstein-Rathlou NH, Skott O. Renal blood flow, early distal sodium, and plasma renin concentrations during osmotic diuresis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2000; 279: R1268-R1276. 40. Liss P, Nygren A, Ulfendahl HR, et al. Effect of furosemide or mannitol before injection of a non- ionic contrast medium on intrarenal oxygen ten- sion. Adv Exp Med Biol 1999; 471: 353-359. 41. Seo B, Oemar BS, Siebenmann R, et al. Both ETA and ETB receptors mediate contraction to endothelin-1 in human blood vessels. Circulation 1994; 89: 1203-1208. 42. Bagnis C, Idee JM, Dubois M, et al. Role of endothelium-derived nitric oxide-endothelin bal- ance in contrast medium-induced acute renal vasoconstriction in dogs. Acad Radiol 1997; 4: 343- 348. 43. Clark BA, Kim D, Epstein FH. Endothelin and atri- al natriuretic peptide levels following radiocon- trast exposure in humans. Am J Kidney Dis 1997; 30: 82-86 44. Heyman SN, Clark BA, Kaiser N, et al. Radiocontrast agents induce endothelin release in vivo and in vitro. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992 3:58-65. 45. Oldroyd SD, Morcos SK. Endothelin: what does the radiologist need to know? Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 1246-1251. 46. Fujisaki K, Kubo M, Masuda K, et al. Infusion of radiocontrast agents induces exaggerated release of urinary endothelin in patients with impaired renal function. Clin Exp Nephrol 2003; 7: 279-283. 47. Liss P, Carlsson PO, Nygren A, et al. Et-A receptor antagonist BQ123 prevents radiocontrast media- induced renal medullary hypoxia. Acta Radiol 2003; 44: 111-117. 48. Wang A, Holcslaw T, Bashore TM, et al. Exacerbation of radiocontrast nephrotoxicity by endothelin receptor antagonism. Kidney Int 2000; 57: 1675-1680. 49. Schnackenberg CG. Physiological and pathophysi- ological roles of oxygen radicals in the renal microvasculature. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2002; 282: R335-R342. 50. Ishii N, Patel KP, Lane PH, et al. Nitric oxide syn- thesis and oxidative stress in the renal cortex of rats with diabetes mellitus. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 1630-1639. 51. Palm F, Cederberg J, Hansell P, et al. Reactive oxy- gen species cause diabetes-induced decrease in renal oxygen tension. Diabetologia 2003; 46: 1153- 1160. 52. Briguori C, Manganelli F, Scarpato P, et al. Acetylcysteine and contrast agent-associated nephrotoxicity. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 298- 303. 53. Diaz-Sandoval LJ, Kosowsky BD, Losordo DW. Acetylcysteine to prevent angiography-related renal tissue injury (the APART trial). Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 356-358. 54. Shyu KG, Cheng JJ, Kuan P. Acetylcysteine protects against acute renal damage in patients with abnor- mal renal function undergoing a coronary proce- dure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 1383-1388. 55. Tepel M, van der Giet M, Schwarzfeld C, et al. Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent- induced reductions in renal function by acetylcys- teine. N Engl J Med 2000; 2200:: 180-184. 56. Kay J, Chow WH, Chan TM, et al. Acetylcysteine for prevention of acute deterioration of renal func- tion following elective coronary angiography and intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 289: 553-558. 57. Durham JD, Caputo C, Dokko J, et al. A random- ized controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine to prevent contrast nephropathy in cardiac angiography. Kidney Int 2002; 62: 2202-2207. 58. Pflueger A, Larson TS, Nath KA, et al. Role of adenosine in contrast media-induced acute renal failure in diabetes mellitus. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75: 1275-1283. 59. Liss P, Carlsson PO, Palm F, et al. Adenosine A (1) receptors in contrast media-induced renal dys- function in the normal rat. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 1297-1302. 60. Oldroyd SD, Fang L, Haylor JL, et al. Effects of adenosine receptor antagonists on the responses to contrast media in the isolated rat kidney. Clin Sci (Lond) 2000; 98: 303-311. 61. Hardiek K, Katholi RE, Ramkumar V, et al. Proximal tubule cell response to radiographic con- trast media. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2001; 280: F61-F70. 62. Hizoh I, Strater J, Schick CS, et al. Radiocontrast- induced DNA fragmentation of renal tubular cells in vitro: role of hypertonicity. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998; 13: 911-918. 63. Beeri R, Symon Z, Brezis M, et al. Rapid DNA fragmentation from hypoxia along the thick ascending limb of rat kidneys. Kidney Int 1995; 47: 1806-1810. 64. Ueda J, Nygren A, Hansell P, et al. Influence of con- trast media on single nephron glomerular filtra- tion rate in rat kidney. A comparison between dia- trizoate, iohexol, ioxaglate, and iotrolan. Acta Radiol 1992; 33: 596-599. 65. Murphy SW, Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS. Contrast nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11: 177-182. 66. Trivedi HS, Moore H, Nasr S, et al. A randomized prospective trial to assess the role of saline hydra- tion on the development of contrast nephrotoxici- ty. Nephron Clin Pract 2003; 93: C29-C34. ORIGINAL ARTICLE pg17-21 9/28/05 2:32 PM Page 21