Does continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration concomitant with radiological procedures provide a significant and safe removal of the iodinated contrast ioversol?
Détails
ID Serval
serval:BIB_9542FF000AD2
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Does continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration concomitant with radiological procedures provide a significant and safe removal of the iodinated contrast ioversol?
Périodique
Blood Purification
ISSN
0253-5068 (Print)
ISSN-L
0253-5068
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2003
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
21
Numéro
2
Pages
152-157
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Clinical Trial ; Controlled Clinical Trial ; Journal Article Publication Status: ppublish. PDF type: Original Paper
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to investigate whether continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) concomitant with radiological procedures (RxP) was feasible, well tolerated and could significantly remove iodinated contrast media (CM).
METHODS: 26 patients with various degrees of renal insufficiency who were submitted to RxP were included in the study. The CVVHDF session was started immediately before CM administration. All the patients were evaluated for feasibility and tolerability; furthermore a pharmacokinetic study was done on 12 patients to calculate the amount of CM eliminated. The baseline incidence of CM nephropathy was studied in 25 consecutive historical controls.
RESULTS: The CM administered was 208 +/- 146 g; the fractional removal of CM was 9.2 +/- 4.9% during RxP and 30.9 +/- 20.7% during the whole CVVHDF session. Hemodynamic tolerance was excellent. The incidence of CM nephropathy in the experimental and control groups was 37 and 24%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: CVVHDF during RxP is feasible and well tolerated but ioversol removal is modest. This fact together with the high incidence of renal function impairment, the complexity of the procedure and its intrinsic risks, and the large amount of resources needed discourage the routine use of CVVHDF as a prophylactic tool to avoid CM nephropathy.
METHODS: 26 patients with various degrees of renal insufficiency who were submitted to RxP were included in the study. The CVVHDF session was started immediately before CM administration. All the patients were evaluated for feasibility and tolerability; furthermore a pharmacokinetic study was done on 12 patients to calculate the amount of CM eliminated. The baseline incidence of CM nephropathy was studied in 25 consecutive historical controls.
RESULTS: The CM administered was 208 +/- 146 g; the fractional removal of CM was 9.2 +/- 4.9% during RxP and 30.9 +/- 20.7% during the whole CVVHDF session. Hemodynamic tolerance was excellent. The incidence of CM nephropathy in the experimental and control groups was 37 and 24%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: CVVHDF during RxP is feasible and well tolerated but ioversol removal is modest. This fact together with the high incidence of renal function impairment, the complexity of the procedure and its intrinsic risks, and the large amount of resources needed discourage the routine use of CVVHDF as a prophylactic tool to avoid CM nephropathy.
Mots-clé
Acute Kidney Injury/chemically induced, Acute Kidney Injury/prevention & control, Aged, Contrast Media/adverse effects, Contrast Media/pharmacokinetics, Creatinine/blood, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hemodiafiltration/methods, Humans, Kidney Failure, Chronic/blood, Male, Middle Aged, Safety, Triiodobenzoic Acids/adverse effects, Triiodobenzoic Acids/pharmacokinetics
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
24/04/2013 13:24
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 14:57