Home About us Current issue Back issues Submission Instructions Advertise Contact Login   

Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
 
Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation
Users online: 1220 Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size 
 


 
Table of Contents   
BRIEF COMMUNICATION  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 94-100
A comparison of definitions of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with normal serum creatinine


1 Nephrology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication15-Jan-2016
 

   Abstract 

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the third leading cause of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients. The prevalence of CIN is reported to range from 0% to 50%, depending not only on patient condition and the procedure used but also the definition of CIN applied. We aimed to determine the best diagnostic indicator of CIN in patients with normal serum creatinine. This study included 206 patients with normal serum creatinine who underwent coronary angiography/angioplasty. Serum creatinine level and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were measured before and on the second and fifth days after contrast administration. The incidence of CIN based on a 25% increase in serum creatinine was calculated and compared with the incidence based on a 25% decrease in GFR or an increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL in serum creatinine. Of 206 patients, 127 were male (61.7%) and 79 were female (38.3%); the mean age was 59.56 ± 10.3 years. The prevalence of CIN was 30% based on a 25% increase in serum creatinine, 23% based on a 25% decrease in GFR (P <0.012) and 3.8% based on a serum creatinine increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL (P <0.0001). The serum creatinine levels remained within the normal range in the majority of patients with CIN based on the different definitions. In patients with normal serum creatinine, the absolute increase in serum creatinine may describe the prevalence of CIN more accurately than the relative increase in serum creatinine or relative decrease in GFR.

How to cite this article:
Khatami MR, Nikravan N, Salari-Far M, Davoudi S, Pahlavan-Sabbagh MR. A comparison of definitions of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with normal serum creatinine. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2016;27:94-100

How to cite this URL:
Khatami MR, Nikravan N, Salari-Far M, Davoudi S, Pahlavan-Sabbagh MR. A comparison of definitions of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with normal serum creatinine. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2016 [cited 2018 Sep 23];27:94-100. Available from: http://www.sjkdt.org/text.asp?2016/27/1/94/174086

   Introduction Top


Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is characterized by a rapid decline in renal function after contrast media exposure in the absence of other obvious causes of acute kidney injury (AKI). The widespread use of contrast media [1] has focused attention on CIN as the thirdleading cause of AKI among hospitalized patients, [2] which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. [3],[4] Previous history of renal failure is the most important risk factor for CIN [5] and a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 60 mL/min is considered the cut-off point for at-risk patients. [6],[7] Other important risk factors for CIN include the presence of diabetes, [8] the type and amount of contrast media [9] and patient hemodynamic status during the procedure. [5] Since the first report of CIN in 1954, [10] there has been no consensus on the optimal definition of CIN. CIN is commonly defined by a 25% relative increase in serum creatinine, a 25% relative decrease in GFR or a 0.5 mg/ dL absolute increase in serum creatinine. [11],[12]

Clinically, serum creatinine is the standard marker of kidney function; however, creatinine is not a real-time marker of changes in renal function and several factors other than renal function may affect serum creatinine levels.

Direct measurement of GFR is the most sensitive method of evaluating kidney function, [13] but is rarely used in clinical practice. Several GFR measurement methods are used in clinical practice, including the Cockcroft- Gault (C-G), [14] Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) [15] and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD- EPI) [16] equations.

We compared the prevalence of CIN using the various available definitions to determine the most accurate predictor of CIN in patients with normal serum creatinine.


   Methods Top


In this study, we enrolled 206 adult patients who were subjected to coronary angiography after all patients provided written informed consent. All patients had normal serum creatinine (≤1.5 mg/dL for males and ≤1.3 mg/ dL for females) and none had received nephrotoxins in the week preceding the procedure.

Angiography was performed with lowor medium-osmolality contrast medium, with infusion fluid administered 4 h before the procedure and continuing 8 h afterward. Serum creatinine levels were measured immediately before the procedure and on the second and fifth days after angiography. Patients who developed hemodynamic instability or required nephrotoxic agents were excluded thereafter. The GFR was measured using three formulas; the C-G equation was adjusted for body surface area calculated using the Du Bois and Du Bois equation. [17] The patients were categorized as having CIN by different definitions on the second and fifth days after the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS (v.18) software. The quantitative parameters were compared using Friedman's ANOVA test. The qualitative parameters were compared by Chi-squared and Z-test performed using the Z-test calculator. A P-value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.


   Results Top


Of 206 patients, 127 were male (61.7%) and 79 were female (38.3%); the mean age was 59.56 ± 10.3 years. Although the mean hemoglobin (Hb) was 13.69 ± 1.68 g/L, 34 patients (16.5%) were anemic (Hb <12.5) and 69 patients (33.5%) had diabetes. The average volume of contrast media used was 236 ± 70 mL; 113 patients received Visipaque, 90 patients received Omnipaque and only two patients received Ultravist. The mean baseline serum creatinine was 0.96 ± 0.21 mg/dL. The GFR values measured by C-G, CKD-EPI and MDRD were 82.4 ± 22 mL/min/1.73 m 2 body surface area, 79 ± 18 mL/min and 80.5 ± 21, respectively; these differences were significant (P = 0.014). Despite the fact that all patients had normal serum creatinine, 32 (15.5%), 37 (18%) and 34 (16.5%) patients had a GFR <60 mL/min as calculated by C-G, CKD-EPI and MDRD, respectively (P = 0.69). [Table 1] shows the clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients according to the various diagnostic definitions.
Table 1: Characteristic data of patients with CIN according to the different definitions and the different GFR equations.

Click here to view


The prevalence of CIN also varied according to the diagnostic definition. [Figure 1] shows the overall incidence of CIN according to the definition used and [Figure 2] shows the prevalence of CIN on the second and fifth days after contrast media exposure according to definition.
Figure 1: The prevalence of CIN according to different definitions and different GFR equations.

Click here to view
Figure 2: The prevalence of CIN according to the different definitions on Days 2 and 5 after contrast exposure.

Click here to view


As shown in [Table 1], the prevalence of CIN is significantly different between the definitions of 25% relative increase in serum creatinine or 25% relative decline in GFR with that of a 0.5 mg/dL absolute increase in serum creatinine (P < 0.0001). However, when the cut-off point of CIN is defined as a 20% reduction in the GFR, the prevalence of disease is identical to that defined by a 25% increase in serum creatinine (30% in both).

All but three patients had serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL after angiography. Thus, the serum creatinine levels remained within the normal range in the majority of patients with CIN based on the different definitions. Interestingly, no patients with GFR <60 mL/min (28-38 patients based on the different equations) developed CIN.


   Discussion Top


We compared the prevalence of CIN in patients with normal serum creatinine according to the different diagnostic definitions. The upper limit of normal serum creatinine was assumed to be 1.5 mg/dL. [18] In our study, the incidence of CIN was 30.5% based on a 25% relative increase in serum creatinine. According to the relative reduction in GFR, the prevalence of CIN was 19.9%, 23.7% and 20.8% when GFR was measured using the C-G, MDRD or CKD-EPI equations, respectively. The lowest prevalence of CIN (3.8%) resulted from a definition of a 0.5 mg/dL absolute increase in serum creatinine.

Serum creatinine is not an optimal indicator of renal function as the level is affected by many factors, including hydration status, diet and medications. [12],[19] Therefore, the relative increase in serum creatinine may not reflect the true prevalence of CIN in patients with normal serum creatinine; instead, the GFR change may be a better index of this condition (P <0.012). Some studies showed that 13.9- 34.1% of patients with normal serum creatinine had reduced GFR. [20],[21]

Using the same set of patients in all calculations, our study clearly showed a discrepancy in the prevalence of CIN when defined as an increase in serum creatinine compared with a decrease in GFR (P <0.012). Although the majority of patients with CIN maintained a normal serum creatinine range, a serum creatinine increase of as little as 5% can detect CIN with 75% sensitivity and 72% specificity. [22] Moreover, it was evident that even small changes in serum creatinine can affect the long-term survival of these patients. [23]

In the literature, a 25% relative increase in serum creatinine is considered equivalent to a 25% decrease in the GFR; however, this assumption is not a mathematical reality. At every serum creatinine level in every patient, a 25% increase in serum creatinine is equivalent to only a 20% decrease in GFR; likewise, a 25% decrease in the GFR is seen when serum creatinine is increased by at least 33%. Importantly, the difference in prevalence of CIN becomes highly significant when the CIN is defined as a 0.5 mg/dL increase in serum creatinine (P <0.0001; [Table 1]. Interestingly, patients with a 40% increase in serum creatinine in this study did not reach the threshold of at least 0.5 mg/dL absolute creatinine.

No reports have compared the various methods of GFR calculation in CIN. We compared the C-G, CKD-EPI and MDRD equations and found significant differences among them; the highest value resulted from C-G and the lowest from CKD-EPI. Unfortunately, we were unable to compare these values by standard methods of GFR measurement to determine which is more accurate. One study suggested that CKD-EPI is a better predictor of GFR, with no significant difference compared with MDRD. Overall, a lower bias is reported with MDRD, whereas the best accuracy is seen with both CKD-EPI and MDRD. [24]

In our study, the prevalence of disease was significantly higher on the fifth day after the procedure than on the second day (20.4% vs. 10.2%). Although many factors may play roles in this finding, perhaps the most important is proper hydration to dilute the serum creatinine the day after the procedure.

Another interesting result was that 32 patients (15.5%) had GFR <60 mL/min (mean = 51.2, range = 34.4-59.8 mL/min); however, none of these patients developed CIN. Interpretation of this observation is difficult due to the small sample size. Millward et al [25] reported that six of 48 patients had decreased GFR, but only one of them had abnormal serum creatinine.

A 10% prevalence of CIN is reported in patients with normal renal function. One study reported that none of the patients with Cystatin-C levels <0.85 mg/L had CIN. [26]

Newhouse et al [27] demonstrated that patients with a serum creatinine of 0.6-1.2 mg/dL had a 25% increase in serum creatinine even in the absence of contrast media exposure.

Erselcan et al [28] and Rao et al [29] showed that the changes in serum creatinine before and after contrast media exposure were not sufficient for a CIN diagnosis. Two other studies that compared the serum creatinine and GFR found a 50-77% concordance between them. [28],[30] Other studies showed either concordance [31] or discordance [32] between serum creatinine and GFR.

Kiyokuni et al [33] assessed the three definitions of CIN and showed that a 0.5 mg/dL increase in serum creatinine is the best predictor of the long-term outcome in these patients. Solcum et al [34] also showed that the definition of a 0.5mg/dL increase in serum creatinine is a better indicator of future cardiovascular events and renal diseases. Based on this study, a 25% relative increase in serum creatinine is a moresensitive but less-specific marker of long-term outcome. According to Harjai et al, both delta Cr >25% and absolute increase of 0.5 mg/dL serum creatinine in patients with contrast nephropathy are the most valuable predictors of major cardiovascular events in six months. [35] Other studies have demonstrated that a 0.5 mg/dL increase in serum creatinine is the better predictor of both short-term and longterm outcomes compared with a 25% relative increase in serum creatinine. [36]

We concluded that in patients with normal serum creatinine, the definition of CIN according to a 0.5 mg/dL absolute increase in serum creatinine significantly reduced the prevalence of the disease compared with the definition based on a 25% relative increase in serum creatinine or a 20-25% relative decrease in GFR. Corroborating results from other studies, our findings suggest that the absolute increase in serum creatinine may be a more reliable indicator of CIN in patients with normal serum creatinine.


   Acknowledgment Top


This work has been sponsored by a grant from the Deputy Research of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

 
   References Top

1.
Katzberg RW, Haller C. Contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: Clinical landscape. Kidney Int Suppl 2006;100:S3-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Nash K, Hafeez A, Hou S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39: 930-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
McCullough PA, Wolyn R, Rocher LL, Levin RN, O'Neill WW. Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: Incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. Am J Med 1997; 103:368-75.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, et al. Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2002;105:2259-64.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
McCullough PA, Adam A, Becker CR, et al. Epidemiology and prognostic implications of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:5K-13K.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mehran R, Nikolsky E. Contrast-induced nephropathy: Definition, epidemiology, and patients at risk. Kidney Int Suppl 2006;100: S11-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Bartholomew BA, Harjai KJ, Dukkipati S, et al. Impact of nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention and a method for risk stratification. Am J Cardiol 2004;93:1515-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Rudnick MR, Kesselheim A, Goldfarb S. Contrast-induced nephropathy: How it develops, how to prevent it. Cleve Clin J Med 2006;73:75-80, 83-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Campodonico J, et al. Contrast volume during primary percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent contrastinduced nephropathy and mortality. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:170-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bartels ED, Brun GC, Gammeltoft A, Gjørup PA. Acute anuria following intravenous pyelography in a patient with myelomatosis. Acta Med Scand 1954;150:297-302.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Solomon R. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI). Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47:783-8, v.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Jabara R, Gadesam RR, Pendyala LK, et al. Impact of the definition utilized on the rate of contrast-induced nephropathy in percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2009;103: 1657-62.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Contrast media and the kidney: European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines. Br J Radiol 2003;76:513-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 1976;16:31-41.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth DA. More accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: A new prediction equation. Modification of diet in renal disease study group. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:461-70.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:604-12.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Du Bois D, Du Bois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight are known. Arch Intern Med 1917;16: 863-71.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA. Contrastmedia-induced nephrotoxicity: A consensus report. Contrast media safety committee, European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR). Eur Radiol 1999;9:1602-13.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Katzberg RW, Lamba R. Contrast-induced nephropathy after intravenous administration: Fact or fiction? Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47:789-800, v.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Duncan L, Heathcote J, Djurdjev O, Levin A. Screening for renal disease using serum creatinine: Who are we missing? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16:1042-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Mujtaba SH, Mahmood SN, Ashraf T, Anjum Q. Glomerular filtration rate rather than serum creatinine should be used for recognizing patients at risk for development of contrast induced nephropathy. Pak J Med Sci 2012;28: 135-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Ribichini F. Early creatinine shift predict contrast-induced nephropathy and persistent renal damage after angiography. Am J Med 2010;123:755-63.   Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Weisbord SD, Chen H, Stone RA, et al. Associations of increases in serum creatinine with mortality and length of hospital stay after coronary angiography. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:2871-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Michels WM, Grootendorst DC, Verduijn M, Elliott EG, Dekker FW, Krediet RT. Performance of the Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and new CKD-EPI formulas in relation to GFR, age, and body size. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:1003-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Millward SF, Burbridge BE, Hartman NG, Moher D, Chamberlain MJ. Nephrotoxicity of ioxaglate and ioversol assessed by glomerular filtration rate: A pilot study. Can Assoc Radiol J 1996;47:24-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Mayaud N, Isaaz K, Mariat C, et al. Contrast induced nephropathy in patients with normal renal function undergoing complex PCI with high dose of contrast media: Predictive value of Cystatin C. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58: B138.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Newhouse JH, Kho D, Rao QA, Starren J. Frequency of serum creatinine changes in the absence of iodinated contrast material: Implications for studies of contrast nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:376-82.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Erselcan T, Egilmez H, Hasbek Z, Tandogan I. Contrast-induced nephropathy: Controlled study by differential GFR measurement in hospitalized patients. Acta Radiol 2012;53:228-32.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Rao QA, Newhouse JH. Risk of nephropathy after intravenous administration of contrast material: A critical literature analysis. Radiology 2006;239:392-7.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Oddoze C, Morange S, Portugal H, Berland Y, Dussol B. Cystatin C is not more sensitive than creatinine for detecting early renal impairment in patients with diabetes. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;38:310-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Bader BD, Berger ED, Heede MB, et al. What is the best hydration regimen to prevent contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity? Clin Nephrol 2004;62:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Kapoor A, Kumar S, Gulati S, Gambhir S, Sethi RS, Sinha N. The role of theophylline in contrast-induced nephropathy: A case-control study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002;17:1936-41.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Kiyokuni M, Kosuge M, Endo T, et al. Comparison of prognostic values of contemporary contrast-induced nephropathy definitions in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing emergency coronary angiography. Circulation 2011;124:A8816.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Slocum NK, Grossman PM, Moscucci M, et al. The changing definition of contrast-induced nephropathy and its clinical implications: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2). Am Heart J 2012;163:829-34.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Harjai KJ, Raizada A, Shenoy C, et al. A comparison of contemporary definitions of contrast nephropathy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and a proposal for a novel nephropathy grading system. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:812-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Budano C, Levis M, D'Amico M, et al. Impact of contrast-induced acute kidney injury definition on clinical outcomes. Am Heart J 2011; 161:963-71.  Back to cited text no. 36
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Mohammad Reza Khatami
Nephrology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/1319-2442.174086

PMID: 26787573

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
   
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Acknowledgment
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1144    
    Printed9    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded291    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal