The Journal of Urology
Volume 180, Issue 3 , Pages 830-835, September 2008

Association of Gadolinium Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents and Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis

  • Gautam Bhave

      Affiliations

    • Division of Nephrology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
    • Nothing to disclose.
  • ,
  • Julia B. Lewis

      Affiliations

    • Division of Nephrology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
    • Nothing to disclose.
  • ,
  • Sam S. Chang

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Department of Urologic Surgery, A-1302 Medical Center North, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232 (telephone: 615-322-2101; FAX: 615-322-8990).
    • Financial interest and/or other relationship with Sanofi-Aventis, Tetralogic, Indevus, Bioniche and Amgen.

Received 1 December 2007 published online 17 July 2008.

Purpose

We investigated the recently discovered association between gadolinium based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents and the development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review of the PubMed® database and publicly available patient databases was performed to characterize nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and its possible association with exposure to gadolinium based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents.

Results

Data from case series reports, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis patient databases, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis case reporting to the Food and Drug Administration after gadolinium contrast agent exposure and retrospective case control studies suggest a strong association between the use of gadolinium based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents and the subsequent development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with renal disease. These data also suggest that the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis depends on the degree of renal dysfunction, dose of contrast agent, gadolinium contrast agent stability and severity of concomitant illness. Thus, the occurrence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after gadolinium contrast agent exposure may vary from negligible up to 2% to 5% in select high risk clinical situations.

Conclusions

Magnetic resonance imaging using gadolinium based contrast agents must be performed judiciously in patients with renal dysfunction, carefully weighing on a case by case basis the benefits of magnetic resonance imaging and the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis as well as the disadvantages of undergoing alternative or foregoing imaging studies.

Key Words: gadolinium, kidney diseases, magnetic resonance imaging

Abbreviations and Acronyms: AKI, acute kidney injury, CKD, chronic kidney disease, CT, computed tomography, ESRD, end stage renal disease, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, GBMCA, gadolinium based MRI contrast agent, GFR, glomerular filtration rate, IV, intravenous, MRA, magnetic resonance angiography, MRI, magnetic resonance imaging, NFD, nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy, NSF, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Editor's Note: This article is the first of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 1196 and 1197.

PII: S0022-5347(08)01225-1

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.005

The Journal of Urology
Volume 180, Issue 3 , Pages 830-835, September 2008