Literature DB >> 12942301

Selective use of low-osmolality contrast media in computed tomography.

Carlos Valls1, Eduard Andía, Anna Sánchez, Victor Moreno.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe our experience and institutional savings with a selective use of low-osmolality contrast media (LOCM) in CT. From 1995 to 1998, a total of 19,834 contrast-enhanced CT examinations were performed at our institution. Contrast was injected with a power injector and large venous catheter, 20-G for 2- to 3-ml rate and 18-G for 3- to 5-ml rate. High-osmolality contrast media was used in 13,670 patients (71%). The LOCM was used in 5884 (29%) patients. Our guidelines for the use of LOCM included cardiac dysfunction, severe pulmonary impairment, history of allergy or prior moderate reaction to HOCM and severe debilitation. Prior to the injection of HOCM, 10 mg of metoclopramide (Primperan, Delagrange Quétigny, France) were administered to reduce nausea and vomiting. In the HOCM group there were 304 minor or mild adverse reactions (2.2%), and 10 severe adverse reactions (0.08%). In the LOCM there were 34 mild or moderate adverse reactions (0.59%) and 3 severe adverse reactions (0.05%). Significant differences in terms of mild adverse reactions were found between HOCM and LOCM (Fischer's test, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of severe adverse reactions ( p=0.27). After subtracting the cost of treating additional adverse reactions, the net differential cost between universal and selective use of LOCM was 565,285 Euro (601,067 US dollars). This means a net increase of 41.4 Euro per patient or 414,000 Euro per 10,000 patients (438,840 US dollars). Selective use of LOCM in CT is safe and effective and results in a substantial reduction in costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 12942301     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-001-1190-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  13 in total

1.  Selective use of low-osmolar contrast media.

Authors:  J F Debatin; R H Cohan; R A Leder; C B Zakrzewski; N R Dunnick
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 6.016

2.  Low-osmolality contrast agents--who needs them?

Authors:  J W Hirshfeld
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-02-13       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The risks of death and of severe nonfatal reactions with high- vs low-osmolality contrast media: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  J J Caro; E Trindade; M McGregor
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Universal versus selective use of low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s: a radiologist's perspective.

Authors:  P M Silverman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media.

Authors:  H Katayama; K Yamaguchi; T Kozuka; T Takashima; P Seez; K Matsuura
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Hepatic helical CT: effect of reduction of iodine dose of intravenous contrast material on hepatic contrast enhancement.

Authors:  P C Freeny; J C Gardner; G vonIngersleben; S Heyano; H V Nghiem; T C Winter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  X-ray contrast media: where are we now, and where are we going?

Authors:  T W Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Patient allergies: role in selective use of nonionic contrast material.

Authors:  J D Halpern; K D Hopper; M G Arredondo; J J Trautlein
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast material for intravenous use in patients perceived to be at high risk: randomized trial.

Authors:  B J Barrett; P S Parfrey; J R McDonald; D M Hefferton; E R Reddy; P J McManamon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Results of randomized controlled trials of low-versus high-osmolality contrast media.

Authors:  M L Kinnison; N R Powe; E P Steinberg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  5 in total

1.  Extrinsic warming of low-osmolality iodinated contrast media to 37°C reduced the rate of allergic-like reaction.

Authors:  Bin Zhang; Jing Liu; Yuhao Dong; Baoliang Guo; Zhouyang Lian; Hui Yu; Xiaoning Luo; Xiaokai Mo; Lu Zhang; Wenhui Huang; Fusheng Ouyang; Xinyun Li; Changhong Liang; Shuixing Zhang
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Proc       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 2.587

2.  Effects of contrast media on the hepato-pancreato-biliary system.

Authors:  Omer Topcu; Atilla Kurt; Isilay Nadir; Sema Arici; Ayhan Koyuncu; Cengiz Aydin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Contrast Enhanced MRI in the Diagnosis of HCC.

Authors:  Eric Niendorf; Benjamin Spilseth; Xiao Wang; Andrew Taylor
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2015-09-21

4.  Doctor I Have an Iodine Allergy.

Authors:  Michael W Stewart
Journal:  Ophthalmol Ther       Date:  2022-04-24

5.  Immediate and nonimmediate reactions induced by contrast media: incidence, severity and risk factors.

Authors:  Martín Bedolla-Barajas; Dante D Hernández-Colín; Jaime Morales-Romero; Carlos Serrano-Salinas
Journal:  Asia Pac Allergy       Date:  2013-10-31
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.