European Radiology

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 237–241

Late adverse reactions to non-ionic contrast media: a cohort analytic study

  • S. A. Beyer-Enke
  • E. Zeitler
Original Articles Contrast media

Abstract

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 words

Adverse reactions Comparative studies Contrast media 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yoshikawa H, Shirato H, Nanbu T, Suzuki K (1990) Late adverse reactions of nonionic contrast materials. Radiology 177:119Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baum S, Stein GN, Kuroda KK (1966) Complications of “No arteriography”. Radiology 86:835–838Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9.
    Becker JA (1991) Evaluation of renal function. Radiology 179:337–338Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Panto PN, Davies P (1986) Delayed reactions to urographic contrast media. Br J Radiol 59:41–44Google Scholar
  11. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Beyer-Enke
    • 1
  • E. Zeitler
    • 1
  1. 1.Zentrum Radiologie, Abteilung DiagnostikStädtisches KlinikumNurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations