Advertisement

Updated guidelines for intravenous contrast use for CT and MRI

  • Kevin Huynh
  • Arthur H. Baghdanian
  • Armonde A. Baghdanian
  • Derek S. Sun
  • K. Pallav KolliEmail author
  • Ronald J. Zagoria
Hot Topic Review
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

Intravenous (IV) contrast material is used extensively for CT and MRI scans done in emergency departments (ED). Its use is essential to make many critical diagnoses in ED patients. While adverse reactions can occur, newer research has added to our knowledge of IV contrast media tolerance and safety leading to improved and more liberal guidelines for intravenous contrast use. The updated information described in this review article indicates how intravenous contrast can be used safely in more patients, more expeditiously and with fewer precautions than with prior guidelines. This review article explains the basis for the new recommendations for intravenous contrast material use and describes indicated precautions and preparations to avoid adverse reactions for iodinated agents used for CT and gadolinium agents for MRI.

Keywords

Contrast material Emergency radiology CT MRI Gadolinium 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Richmond C (2004) Sir Godfrey Hounsfield. BMJ 329:687.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7467.687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    United States Health Resources Administration, National Center for Health Statistics (U.S.) (1992) Advance data. -Apr 23, 1980, DHEW Publ noGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD (2017) Health at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publ. https://doi.org/health_glance-2015-en
  4. 4.
    Pasternak JJ, Williamson EE (2012) Clinical pharmacology, uses, and adverse reactions of iodinated contrast agents: a primer for the non-radiologist. Mayo Clin ProcGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH et al (2008) Frequency, outcome, and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions. Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3421 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T et al (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343107 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jung J-W, Kang H-R, Kim M-H et al (2012) Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based MR contrast media. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112025 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Center for Health Statistics (2017) Health United States report 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tepel M, Aspelin P, Lameire N (2006) Contrast-induced nephropathy: a clinical and evidence-based approach. Circulation.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.595090 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bartels ED, Brun GC, Gammeltoft A, Gjørup PA (1954) Acute anuria following intravenous pyelography in a patient with myelomatosis. Acta Med Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1954.tb18632.x Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Killmann S-A, Gjørup S, Thaysen JH (1957) Fatal acute renal failure following intravenous pyelography in a patient with multiple myeloma. Acta Med Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1957.tb15742.x Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khwaja A (2012) KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron - Clin. PractPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruce RJ, Djamali A, Shinki K et al (2009) Background fluctuation of kidney function versus contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1413 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heller CA, Knapp J, Halliday J et al (1991) Failure to demonstrate contrast nephrotoxicity. Med J AustGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langner S, Stumpe S, Kirsch M et al (2008) No increased risk for contrast-induced nephropathy after multiple CT perfusion studies of the brain with a nonionic, dimeric, iso-osmolal contrast medium. Am J Neuroradiol.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1164 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lima FO, Lev MH, Levy RA et al (2010) Functional contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation of acute ischemic stroke does not increase the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Neuroradiol.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1927 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGillicuddy EA, Schuster KM, Kaplan LJ et al (2010) Contrast-induced nephropathy in elderly trauma patients. J Trauma - Inj Infect Crit Care.  https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181cf7e40 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oleinik A, Romero JM, Schwab K et al (2009) CT angiography for intracerebral hemorrhage does not increase risk of acute nephropathy. Stroke.  https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.546127 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tremblay LN, Tien H, Hamilton P et al (2005) Risk and benefit of intravenous contrast in trauma patients with an elevated serum creatinine. J Trauma - Inj Infect Crit Care.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000194694.71607.0c
  20. 20.
    Newhouse JH, Kho D, Rao QA, Starren J (2008) Frequency of serum creatinine changes in the absence of iodinated contrast material: implications for studies of contrast nephrotoxicity. Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3280 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katzberg RW, Newhouse JH (2010) Intravenous contrast medium–induced nephrotoxicity: is the medical risk really as great as we have come to believe? Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10092000 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katzberg RW, Lamba R (2009) Contrast-induced nephropathy after intravenous administration: fact or fiction? Radiol Clin N Am 47:789–800.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2009.06.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Cohan RH et al (2013) Contrast material–induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122276 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR et al (2013) Contrast material–induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121394 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Carter RE et al (2014) Risk of intravenous contrast material–mediated acute kidney injury: a propensity score–matched study stratified by baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130775 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, Carter RE, Fleming CJ, Misra S, Williamson EE, Kallmes DF (2013) Intravenous contrast material–induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 267:106–118.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121823 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hinson JS, Ehmann MR, Fine DM et al (2017) Risk of acute kidney injury after intravenous contrast media administration. Ann Emerg Med.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.11.021 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media (2018) ACR manual on contrast media version 10.3Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evola S, Lunetta M, MacAione F et al (2012) Risk factors for contrast induced nephropathy: a study among italian patients. Indian Heart J.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihj.2012.07.007 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mueller C, Buerkle G, Buettner HJ et al (2002) Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Arch Intern MedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Trivedi HS, Moore H, Nasr S et al (2004) A randomized prospective trial to assess the role of saline hydration on the development of contrast nephrotoxicity. Nephron Clin Pract.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000066641 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weisbord SD, Palevsky PM (2008) Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with volume expansion. Clin J Am Soc NephrolGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Solomon RJ, Natarajan MK, Doucet S et al (2007) Cardiac Angiography in Renally Impaired Patients (CARE) study: a randomized double-blind trial of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease. Circulation.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.671644 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Merten GJ, Burgess WP, Gray LV et al (2004) Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.19.2328 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ozcan EE, Guneri S, Akdeniz B et al (2007) Sodium bicarbonate, N-acetylcysteine, and saline for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy. A comparison of 3 regimens for protecting contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary procedures. A single-center prospective controlled. Am Heart J.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2007.05.012 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    From AM, Bartholmai BJ, Williams AW et al (2008) Sodium bicarbonate is associated with an increased incidence of contrast nephropathy: a retrospective cohort study of 7977 patients at Mayo Clinic. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol.  https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.03100707 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maioli M, Toso A, Leoncini M et al (2008) Sodium bicarbonate versus saline for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography or intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.026 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    American College of Radiology (2017) ACR manual on contrast mediaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kolli P, Elicker B, Coakley F, et al (2018) UCSF CT and X-ray contrast guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tippins RB, Torres WE, Baumgartner BR, Baumgarten DA (2013) Are screening serum creatinine levels necessary prior to outpatient CT examinations? Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.2.r00au23481 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Andreucci M, Faga T, Pisani A et al (2014) Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy through a knowledge of its pathogenesis and risk factors. Sci World JGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rear R, Bell RM, Hausenloy DJ (2016) Contrast-induced nephropathy following angiography and cardiac interventions. Heart.  https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306962 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Deray G (2006) Dialysis and iodinated contrast media. Kidney Int.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5000371 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Younathan CM, Kaude JV, Cook MD et al (1994) Dialysis is not indicated immediately after administration of nonionic contrast agents in patients with end-stage renal disease treated by maintenance dialysis. Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.163.4.8092045 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hamani A, Petitclerc T, Jacobs C, Deray G (1998) Is dialysis indicated immediately after administration of iodinated contrast agents in patients on haemodialysis? Nephrol Dial TransplantGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vogt B, Ferrari P, Schönholzer C et al (2001) Prophylactic hemodialysis after radiocontrast media in patients with renal insufficiency is potentially harmful. Am J Med.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00983-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cruz DN, Goh CY, Marenzi G et al (2012) Renal replacement therapies for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review. Am J MedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Baerlocher MO, Asch M, Myers A (2013) Metformin and intravenous contrast. CMAJ.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.090550 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goergen SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, Harris C (2009) Systematic review of current guidelines, and their evidence base, on risk of lactic acidosis after administration of contrast medium for patients receiving metformin. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090690 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Misbin RI (2004) The phantom of lactic acidosis due to metformin in patients with diabetes. Diabetes CareGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Salpeter SR, Greyber E, Pasternak GA, Salpeter EE (2010) Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst RevGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Turner R (1998) Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07037-8
  53. 53.
    Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE et al (2002) Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012512
  54. 54.
    Eppenga WL, Lalmohamed A, Geerts AF et al (2014) Risk of lactic acidosis or elevated lactate concentrations in metformin users with renal impairment: a population-based cohort study. Diabetes Care.  https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-3023 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lazarus B, Wu A, Shin JI et al (2018) Association of metformin use with risk of lactic acidosis across the range of kidney function: a community-based cohort study. JAMA Intern Med.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0292
  56. 56.
    Bell S, Farran B, McGurnaghan S, McCrimmon RJ, Leese GP, Petrie JR, McKeigue P, Sattar N, Wild S, McKnight J, Lindsay R, Colhoun HM, Looker H (2017) Risk of acute kidney injury and survival in patients treated with metformin: an observational cohort study. BMC Nephrol 18:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-017-0579-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Angioi A, Cabiddu G, Conti M, Pili G, Atzeni A, Matta V, Cao R, Floris M, Songini M, Mulas MF, Rosner M, Pani A (2018) Metformin associated lactic acidosis: a case series of 28 patients treated with sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) and long-term follow-up. BMC Nephrol 19:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-018-0875-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Runge VM, Stewart RG, Clanton JA et al (1983) Work in progress: potential oral and intravenous paramagnetic NMR contrast agents. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.147.3.6844614 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brasch RC, Nitecki DE, Brant Zawadzki M (1983) Brain nuclear magnetic resonance imaging enhanced by a paramagnetic nitroxide contrast agent: preliminary report. Am J NeuroradiolGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J et al (2016) 25 years of contrast-enhanced MRI: developments, current challenges and future perspectives. Adv TherGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA, Cohan RH (1996) Adverse reactions to gadolinium contrast media: a review of 36 cases. Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819369 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Quinn AD, O’Hare NJ, Wallis FJ, Wilson GF (1994) Gd-dtpa: an alternative contrast medium for ct. J Comput Assist Tomogr.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199407000-00022 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cowper SE, Robin HS, Steinberg SM et al (2000) Scleromyxoedema-like cutaneous diseases in renal-dialysis patients. Lancet.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02694-5 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kucher C, Steere J, Elenitsas R, Siegel DL, Xu X (2006) Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy/nephrogenic systemic fibrosis with diaphragmatic involvement in a patient with respiratory failure. J Am Acad Dermatol 54:S31–S34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2005.04.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ting WW, Stone MS, Madison KC, Kurtz K (2003) Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy with systemic involvement. Arch Dermatol 139:903–906.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.139.7.903 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Grobner T (2006) Gadolinium – a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfk062 Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K et al (2006) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol.  https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2006060601 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H et al (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131669 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wertman R, Altun E, Martin DR et al (2008) Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: evaluation of gadolinium chelate contrast agents at four American universities. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483072093 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Robert P, Violas X, Grand S et al (2016) Linear gadolinium-based contrast agents are associated with brain gadolinium retention in healthy rats. Investig Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000241 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Endrikat J, Dohanish S, Schleyer N et al (2018) 10 years of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Investig Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1097/rli.0000000000000462 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Broome DR, Girguis MS, Baron PW et al (2007) Gadodiamide-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why radiologists should be concerned. Am J RoentgenolGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR et al (2007) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2431062144 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wang Y, Alkasab TK, Narin O, et al (2011) Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after adoption of restrictive gadolinium-based contrast agent guidelines. Int. Braz J UrolGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tombach B, Bremer C, Reimer P et al (2002) Using highly concentrated gadobutrol as an MR contrast agent in patients also requiring hemodialysis: safety and dialysability. Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.1.1780105 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Reilly RF (2008) Risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis with gadoteridol (ProHance) in patients who are on long-term hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol.  https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.05721207 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Martin DR, Krishnamoorthy SK, Kalb B et al (2010) Decreased incidence of NSF in patients on dialysis after changing gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI protocols. J Magn Reson Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22024 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF et al (2015) Gadolinium deposition in human brain tissues after contrast-enhanced MR imaging in adult patients without intracranial abnormalities. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161595 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Layne KA, Dargan PI, Archer JRH, Wood DM (2018) Gadolinium deposition and the potential for toxicological sequelae – a literature review of issues surrounding gadolinium-based contrast agents. Br J Clin PharmacolGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ersoy H, Rybicki FJ (2007) Biochemical safety profiles of gadolinium-based extracellular contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Magn Reson ImagingGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kubik-Huch RA, Gottstein-Aalame NM, Frenzel T et al (2000) Gadopentetate dimeglumine excretion into human breast milk during lactation. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.2.r00au09555 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nielsen ST, Matheson I, Rasmussen JN et al (1987) Excretion of iohexol and metrizoate in human breast milk. Acta Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.3109/02841858709177394 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Webb JAW, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK et al (2005) The use of iodinated and gadolinium contrast media during pregnancy and lactation. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2583-y PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Rofsky NM, Weinreb JC, Litt AW (1993) Quantitative analysis of gadopentetate dimeglumine excreted in breast milk. J Magn Reson Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1880030122 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    SHAW DD, POTTS DG (1985) Toxicology of iohexol. Investig Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198501002-00004 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ralston WH, Robbins MS, James P (1989) Reproductive, developmental, and genetic toxicology of ioversol. Investig RadiolGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rajaram S, Exley CE, Fairlie F, Matthews S (2012) Effect of antenatal iodinated contrast agent on neonatal thyroid function. Br J Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/29806327 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bourjeily G, Chalhoub M, Phornphutkul C et al (2010) Neonatal thyroid function: effect of a single exposure to iodinated contrast medium in utero. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100163 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Rofsky NM, Pizzarello DJ, Weinreb JC et al (1994) Effect on fetal mouse development of exposure to MR imaging and gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1880040611 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Bharatha A et al (2016) Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12126 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Thomsen HS (2016) How to manage (treat) immediate-type adverse reactions to GBCA. Top Magn Reson ImagingGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    William HB, Sega AJ (2009) Recognition and treatment of acute contrast reactions. Appl RadiolGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Guru PK, Bohman JK, Fleming CJ et al (2016) Severe acute cardiopulmonary failure related to gadobutrol magnetic resonance imaging contrast reaction: successful resuscitation with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Mayo Clin Proc.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.12.010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Kim MH, Lee SY, Lee SE et al (2014) Anaphylaxis to iodinated contrast media: clinical characteristics related with development of anaphylactic shock. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100154 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Park S-J, Kang D-Y, Sohn K-H et al (2018) Immediate mild reactions to CT with iodinated contrast media: strategy of contrast media readministration without corticosteroids. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172524 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lasser EC, Berry CC, Talner LB, Santini LC, Lang EK, Gerber FH, Stolberg HO (1987) Pretreatment with corticosteroids to alleviate reactions to intravenous contrast material. N Engl J Med 317:845–849.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198710013171401 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Lasser EC, Berry CC, Mishkin MM, et al (1994) Pretreatment with corticosteroids to prevent adverse reactions to nonionic contrast media. Am J RoentgenolGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lee AJ, Gerez I, Shek LPC, Lee BW (2012) Shellfish allergy - an Asia-Pacific perspective. Asian Pacific J. Allergy ImmunolGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Shehadi WH (1974) Adverse reactions to Intravascularly administered contrast media: a comprehensive study based on a prospective survey. Am Roentgen Ray Soc Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Beaty AD, Lieberman PL, Slavin RG (2008) Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: are physicians propagating a myth? Am J Med.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.08.025 Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bettmann MA, Heeren T, Greenfield A, Goudey C (1994) Adverse events with radiographic contrast agents: results of the SCVIR contrast agent registry. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.203.3.9169677 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Brockow K, Christiansen C, Kanny G, et al (2005) Management of hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin ImmunolGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kolbe AB, Hartman RP, Hoskin TL, Carter RE, Maddox DE, Hunt CH, Hesley GK (2014) Premedication of patients for prior urticarial reaction to iodinated contrast medium. Abdom Imaging 39:432–437.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-013-0058-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Church MK, Maurer M, Simons FER et al (2010) Risk of first-generation H1-antihistamines: a GA2LEN position paper. Allergy 65:459–466.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02325.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Inami A, Matsuda R, Grobosch T et al (2016) A simulated car-driving study on the effects of acute administration of levocetirizine, fexofenadine, and diphenhydramine in healthy Japanese volunteers. Hum Psychopharmacol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2524 Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Park JH, Godbold JH, Chung D et al (2011) Comparison of cetirizine and diphenhydramine in the treatment of acute food-induced allergic reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2011.08.026 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Simons FER, Simons KJ (2011) Histamine and H1-antihistamines: celebrating a century of progress. J Allergy Clin ImmunolGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Simons FER (2004) Advances in H 1 -antihistamines. N Engl J Med.  https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra033121 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Mervak BM, Davenport MS, Ellis JH, Cohan RH (2015) Rates of breakthrough reactions in inpatients at high risk receiving premedication before contrast-enhanced CT. Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13810 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Horowitz JM, Bisla JK, Yaghmai V (2016) Premedication of pregnant patients with history of iodinated contrast allergy. Abdom Radiol 41:2424–2428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0843-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Gerosa M, Meroni PL, Cimaz R (2014) Safety considerations when prescribing immunosuppression medication to pregnant women. Expert Opin Drug SafGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Biomedical ImagingUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations