S Radhakrishnan1, S Manoharan, M Fleet. 1. Department of Radiology, Wishaw General Hospital, Lanarkshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, 50, Netherton Street, Wishaw, Lanarkshire ML2 0DP, UK. sureshradhakrish@hotmail.com
Abstract
AIM: To compare the findings of a survey undertaken by us in 2002 regarding steroid premedication given in radiology departments to reduce the risk of adverse reactions in patients at increased risk of intravascular contrast media reactions with a similar survey published in 1994 by R. Seymour et al. The high risk patients considered in our survey were patients with history of asthma, drug allergies, hay fever and eczema. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 225 questionnaires were sent to the consultant in charge for audit for radiology departments from the list given by the Royal College of Radiologists. 175 of the 225 questionnaires were returned (response rate 77.8%) and of these 172 were analysed with respect to the type, dose and duration of steroids. RESULTS: Compared to the survey in 1994, it was found that the number of departments who use steroid cover for all category of risk factors had increased compared to previous survey (73.8% in 2002 versus 55.3% in 1994 (p=0.001). There is now almost universal use of non-ionic contrast 98.8% versus 82.4% in 1994 (p=0.001). There is no agreed policy among radiology departments for the need or the dose or duration of steroid cover. CONCLUSION: Despite the more widespread use of non-ionic contrast media, the use of steroid premedication has increased which is contrary to what is expected as the incidence of adverse reaction to non ionic media is less than ionic contrast media.
AIM: To compare the findings of a survey undertaken by us in 2002 regarding steroid premedication given in radiology departments to reduce the risk of adverse reactions in patients at increased risk of intravascular contrast media reactions with a similar survey published in 1994 by R. Seymour et al. The high risk patients considered in our survey were patients with history of asthma, drug allergies, hay fever and eczema. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 225 questionnaires were sent to the consultant in charge for audit for radiology departments from the list given by the Royal College of Radiologists. 175 of the 225 questionnaires were returned (response rate 77.8%) and of these 172 were analysed with respect to the type, dose and duration of steroids. RESULTS: Compared to the survey in 1994, it was found that the number of departments who use steroid cover for all category of risk factors had increased compared to previous survey (73.8% in 2002 versus 55.3% in 1994 (p=0.001). There is now almost universal use of non-ionic contrast 98.8% versus 82.4% in 1994 (p=0.001). There is no agreed policy among radiology departments for the need or the dose or duration of steroid cover. CONCLUSION: Despite the more widespread use of non-ionic contrast media, the use of steroid premedication has increased which is contrary to what is expected as the incidence of adverse reaction to non ionic media is less than ionic contrast media.