ArticleKidney3602026
Time To Inject Some Contrast into the Nephrotoxicity Debate.
Article in Kidney360, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iodinated contrast media have long been feared for causing contrast-induced AKI (CI-AKI), a concern rooted in early reports with high-osmolar agents. Experimental data suggest potential nephrotoxic mechanisms, yet clinical evidence from older uncontrolled studies was confounded by comorbidities and procedural risks. Contemporary propensity-matched and controlled analyses consistently show that modern low-osmolar and isoosmolar contrast agents (mostly intravenously administered) uncommonly cause true nephrotoxicity, even among high-risk populations, such as patients with advanced CKD, AKI, or critical illness. Large randomized trials, including the Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography trial, found no difference in outcomes between sodium bicarbonate and isotonic saline hydration as preventive strategies, nor N -acetylcysteine administration, and highlighted risks like fluid overload. Persistent fear of CI-AKI has fueled renalism: unnecessary avoidance or delay of essential imaging, leading to worse outcomes. Current consensus emphasizes individualized care-avoiding hypovolemia, limiting contrast dose, and withholding nephrotoxins only in severe kidney impairment. A balanced, evidence-based approach should replace outdated caution. For decades, clinicians have approached iodinated contrast media with excessive caution over CI-AKI. This concern originated in the mid-20th century when a seminal 1954 case report described acute renal failure in a patient with myeloma after injection of a high-osmolar contrast agent. Early contrast formulations indeed had nephrotoxic effects via intense renal vasoconstriction, osmotic diuresis, and direct tubular injury. By the 1980s, any AKI after contrast exposure was broadly labeled CI-AKI, typically defined by a postprocedure increase in serum creatinine (>0.5 mg/dl or >25%) in the absence of other causes. Transition to safer low-osmolar and isoosmolar agents in the late 1980s appears to have been a pivotal step, with other factors likely contributing to the temporal decline in CI-AKI incidence. These include refinement of AKI definitions, improvements in preventive measures (avoiding hypovolemia and suspension of nephrotoxic medications), reduction in the amount of injected contrast, more cautious patient selection, and overall improvements in the management of the underlying conditions for which contrast is administered ( e.g ., acute coronary syndromes and surgical and perioperative care). Nevertheless, the historical fear of CI-AKI has persisted, often disproportionate to modern evidence, sometimes leading to avoidance of necessary diagnostic imaging. This perspective reexamines the nephrotoxicity debate in light of current knowledge, aiming to replace outdated dogma with a balanced, evidence-based approach that prioritizes patient outcomes over unfounded fears.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.