Late adverse reactions to non-ionic contrast media: a cohort analytic study
In this cohort study early, intermediate and late reactions after intravenous injection of non-ionic contrast media were evaluated and compared with the nature and incidence of complaints stated by a control group investigated without contrast media. Study A was conducted by means of a questionnaire. In study B a physician interviewed a different group of patients. Early adverse reactions (day 1) occurred in 11.4% of patients to whom contrast (CM) media had previously been administered compared with 6.1% of patients who had not received a CM injection (study A). Late adverse reactions (up to day 7) were observed in 39.1% and 21.1% of the patients respectively. The incidence was 7.0% versus 0.9% on day 1 for the symptom “increased diuresis”. Between days 4 and 7, 4.8% and 2.6% of the patients respectively had this symptom, which is interpreted as an impairment of renal function. In study B the incidence of early adverse reactions was 3% and 1.5% respectively between days 2 and 3 (CM group). The authors conclude that more than half of the adverse reactions after (non-ionic) contrast media are due to the underlying disease and that a (clinically latent) impairment of renal function can be assumed.
Key wordsAdverse reactions Comparative studies Contrast media
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Yoshikawa H, Shirato H, Nanbu T, Suzuki K (1990) Late adverse reactions of nonionic contrast materials. Radiology 177:119Google Scholar
- 2.Baum S, Stein GN, Kuroda KK (1966) Complications of “No arteriography”. Radiology 86:835–838Google Scholar
- 3.Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology 175:621–628Google Scholar
- 4.Pendergrass HP, Tondreau RL, Pendergrass EP, Ritchie DJ, Hildreth EA, Askovitz SI (1958) Reactions associated with intravenous urography: historical and statistical revieiw. Radiology 71:1–12Google Scholar
- 5.Scherberich JE, Tuengerthal S, Kollath J, Riemann HE (1985) Kontrastmitteltoxizität und Niere: Differenzierte Beurteilung durch tubulusspezifische Gewebsparameter. In: Digitale Radiographie. 1. Frankfurter Gespräch über digitale Radiographie vom 19–22 September 1984 in Bad Nauheim. Schnetztor-Verlag, Konstanz, pp 315–322Google Scholar
- 6.Parfrey PS, Griffiths SM, Barrett BJ, et al (1989) Contrast material induced renal failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both. N Engl J Med 320:143–149Google Scholar
- 7.Harris KG, Smith TP, Cragg AH, Lemke JH (1991) Nephrotoxicity from contrast material in renal insufficiency: ionic versus nonionic agents. Radiology 179:849–852Google Scholar
- 8.Schwab SJ, Hlatky MA, Pieper KS, et al (1989) Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of a nonionic and an ionic radiographic contrast agent. N Engl J Med 320:149–153Google Scholar
- 9.Becker JA (1991) Evaluation of renal function. Radiology 179:337–338Google Scholar
- 10.Panto PN, Davies P (1986) Delayed reactions to urographic contrast media. Br J Radiol 59:41–44Google Scholar
- 11.McCullough M, Davies P, Richardson R (1989) A large trial of intravenous Conray 325 and Niopam 300 to assess immediate and delayed reactions. Br J Radiol 62:260–265Google Scholar