| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Original Research |
1 Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, 505
Parnassus Ave., Rm. M-391, San Francisco, CA 94143.
2 Research Department, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
4 Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
OBJECTIVE. No widely accepted practice guidelines exist for the screening and prevention of contrast nephropathy in patients receiving iodinated IV contrast agents for CT examinations. Issues include screening to identify at-risk patients, discriminatory levels of renal insufficiency beyond which IV contrast material is contraindicated, and the use of preventive measures. We surveyed radiologists to identify the current practice patterns and to determine those areas in which guidelines are most needed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Surveys were e-mailed to 2,000 radiologists. The survey included questions on the issues just described and respondent demographics.
RESULTS. The response rate was 21%. Serum creatinine is the most commonly used screening method: 92% of respondents for inpatient examinations and 66% for outpatient examinations. Only 2% use estimated creatinine clearance. The average threshold serum creatinine value used to determine that patients should not receive IV contrast material is 1.5 mg/dL in 35%, 1.7 mg/dL in 27%, and 2.0 mg/dL in 31% (mean, 1.78 mg/dL). Diabetes slightly lowers the threshold creatinine (mean, 1.68 mg/dL). Fewer than 30% of respondents frequently administer IV contrast material to patients with a renal transplant or multiple myeloma. The most commonly used preventive measures include hydration (93%), reduction of contrast dose (77%), and administration of acetylcysteine (39%). Overall, no important differences were found among practice settings or level of specialization.
CONCLUSION. A wide variation of practice patterns is apparent in the screening and prevention of contrast nephropathy. In some cases, these patterns conflict with recommendations from the literature. The results of this study identify opportunities for further research and areas in need of improved practice guidelines.
Keywords: contrast media • contrast nephropathy • CT • radiology practice • renal disease • screening
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. R. Herts, E. Schneider, N. Obuchowski, E. Poggio, A. Jain, and M. E. Baker Probability of Reduced Renal Function After Contrast-Enhanced CT: A Model Based on Serum Creatinine Level, Patient Age, and Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2009; 193(2): 494 - 500. [Abstract] [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. C. Weinreb Which Study When? Is Gadolinium-enhanced MR Imaging Safer than Iodine-enhanced CT? Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 3 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. R. Herts, E. Schneider, E. D. Poggio, N. A. Obuchowski, and M. E. Baker Identifying Outpatients with Renal Insufficiency before Contrast-enhanced CT by Using Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rates versus Serum Creatinine Levels Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 106 - 113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
