ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2026
[Contrast-induced nephropathy: a real issue or a myth?]
Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 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
backgroundContrast-induced nephropathy or contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) has been regarded for decades as a relevant complication of iodinated contrast medium administration, particularly in perioperative and intensive care settings. However, recent epidemiological and clinical data increasingly challenge this presumed causal relationship and suggest that the associated risk is substantially overestimated.
objectiveThe aim of this article is to critically appraise the current evidence and to reassess the clinical relevance of contrast medium administration within the context of multifactorial acute kidney injury development. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis editorial is based on a narrative and commentary-driven analysis of selected clinical studies, meta-analyses, and current recommendations regarding the use of iodinated contrast media in perioperative and intensive care settings. The published data were evaluated with a particular emphasis on patient-related risk factors and clinically relevant practical aspects.
resultsThe majority of contemporary studies demonstrate no or only a marginal causal association between the administration of iodinated contrast media and the development of AKI. Instead, the occurrence of AKI closely correlates with patient-related factors such as pre-existing chronic kidney disease, hemodynamic instability, sepsis, and systemic inflammation. Preventive measures beyond individualized volume therapy and hemodynamic optimization have not shown consistent effectiveness. Contrast medium administration frequently appears to be a marker of severe disease rather than a primary trigger for AKI.
conclusionThe long-assumed nephrotoxicity of iodinated contrast media requires reevaluation. From an anesthesiological perspective, the focus should shift away from contrast avoidance towards ensuring adequate organ perfusion and hemodynamic stability. Unwarranted reluctance to perform urgently indicated imaging may lead to diagnostic delays and potentially compromises patient safety. A rational evidence-based approach to contrast medium administration within an interdisciplinary risk-benefit assessment is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41770237What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.