[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.158.173.184. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Letters
September 22/29, 2004

Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy With Sodium Bicarbonate—Reply

Author Affiliations
 

Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.

JAMA. 2004;292(12):1428-1429. doi:10.1001/jama.292.12.1428-c

In Reply: To Dr Shavit and colleagues, we state that our primary end point was defined by percent change in serum creatinine. Percent change in GFR was a secondary observation. As noted in our methods section, we estimated the primary and secondary end points using the modified rather than the original Levey formula.1 The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group estimates GFR by multiplying: 186 × creatinine−1.154 × age−0.203. If the patient is African American, the product is multiplied by 1.21. If the patient is female, the product is multiplied by 0.742. If the patient is both African American and female, the product is multiplied by 1.21 and 0.742. This formula does not use serum albumin or BUN to calculate GFR. Thus, better expansion of extracellular volume by NaHCO3 with subsequent dilution of serum albumin or BUN can not account for our findings. Moreover, previous investigators have reported that 500 mL of 0.154 mol/L NaCl actually provides better volume expansion and renin suppression than 750 mL of 0.154 mol/L NaHCO3.2,3 We did not collect serum albumin or BUN values as part of our study, and therefore can not provide these data to Shavit et al, but we do not believe that differences in volume expansion account for better protection from contrast-induced nephropathy with NaHCO3.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×