4.7 Article

Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxides (USPIOs): a future alternative magnetic resonance (MR) contrast agent for patients at risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF)?

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 75, 期 5, 页码 465-474

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2008.496

关键词

nephrogenic systemic fibrosis; magnetic resonance imaging; ferumoxytol; i.v. iron

资金

  1. NIH [NS33618, NS34608, NS44687]
  2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NIB1B EB007258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gadolinium (Gd) based contrast agents (GBCAs) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used in daily clinical practice and appear safe in most patients; however, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) is a recently recognized severe complication associated with GBCAs. It affects primarily patients with renal disease, such as stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD; glomerular filtration rate < 30 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)), acute kidney injury, or kidney and liver transplant recipients with kidney dysfunction. Contrast-enhanced MRI and computed tomography (CT) scans provide important clinical information and influence patient management. An alternative contrast agent is needed to obtain adequate imaging results while avoiding the risk of NSF in this vulnerable patient group. One potential alternative is ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO) nanoparticles, which provide enhancement characteristics similar to GBCAs. We review our experience in approximately 150 patients on the potential benefits of the USPIOs ferumoxtran-10 and ferumoxytol. We focus on central nervous system (CNS) MRI but also review imaging of other vascular beds. Safety studies, including USPIO administration (ferumoxytol) as iron supplement therapy in CKD patients on and not on dialysis, suggest that decreased kidney function does not alter the safety profile. We conclude that for both CNS MR imaging and MR angiography, USPIO agents like ferumoxytol are a viable option for patients at risk for NSF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据