The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) attributed to iodinated contrast has been over-estimated and this has led clinicians to withhold potentially life-saving diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. There is mounting evidence that iodinated contrast plays only a minor role in the development of AKI in comparison with more significant risk factors such as pre-existing renal dysfunction, hemodynamic instability and exposure to nephrotoxic drugs. We will present data which challenge the dogma of avoiding iodinated contrast in patients with reduced renal function. Based on a rational and individualized risk-benefit analysis, we believe it is preferable to utilize iodinated contrast if alternate diagnostic or therapeutic options are comparatively ineffective or hazardous.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfy153 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!