Kunyong Xu1, Velina Tzankova1, Cody Li1, Sanjay Sharma2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Hotel Dieu Hospital and Queen's University Kingston, Kingston, Ont. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Hotel Dieu Hospital and Queen's University Kingston, Kingston, Ont.. Electronic address: drsharma@insidermedicine.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess (i) the adverse reactions (ARs) associated with intravenous fluorescein angiography (IVFA); (ii) the relationship between a known history of IVFA-associated AR and ARs on the subsequent IVFA test; and (iii) the dose-response relationship between intravenous sodium fluorescein (NaFl) injection and ARs associated with IVFA. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2247 patients with 3381 consecutive IVFAs between May 2013 and April 2014. METHODS: Fisher's exact tests or χ2 tests were used to compare the percentage difference of IVFA-associated ARs for different categorical variables. Logistic regressions were used to assess the relationship between a known history of IVFA-associated AR and any AR(s) on a subsequent IVFA test. RESULTS: The overall percentage for IVFA-associated ARs was 3.3%. Adjusted for age and sex, patients who had a previous IVFA-associated AR(s) were 6.2 times more likely (adjusted odds ratio 95% CI 3.4-11.2, p < 0.0001) to have an AR compared to those who did not. Among 17 patients who had 2 repeated IVFA tests and an AR on the first IVFA test, the rate of AR on the second test was lower in patients who received a reduced dosage of NaFl (n = 14) compared to those with the standard dosage (n = 3) (35.7% vs 66.7%); however, this finding was not statistically significant (p = 0.5368). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of IVFA-associated ARs in this study was low. Patients who had a known IVFA-associated AR were more likely to re-experience an AR on a subsequent test compared to those who did not. In addition, a reduced NaFl dose did not significantly reduce the chance of experiencing an AR on a subsequent test, which is likely because of the insufficient power of this comparison.
OBJECTIVES: To assess (i) the adverse reactions (ARs) associated with intravenous fluorescein angiography (IVFA); (ii) the relationship between a known history of IVFA-associated AR and ARs on the subsequent IVFA test; and (iii) the dose-response relationship between intravenous sodium fluorescein (NaFl) injection and ARs associated with IVFA. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2247 patients with 3381 consecutive IVFAs between May 2013 and April 2014. METHODS: Fisher's exact tests or χ2 tests were used to compare the percentage difference of IVFA-associated ARs for different categorical variables. Logistic regressions were used to assess the relationship between a known history of IVFA-associated AR and any AR(s) on a subsequent IVFA test. RESULTS: The overall percentage for IVFA-associated ARs was 3.3%. Adjusted for age and sex, patients who had a previous IVFA-associated AR(s) were 6.2 times more likely (adjusted odds ratio 95% CI 3.4-11.2, p < 0.0001) to have an AR compared to those who did not. Among 17 patients who had 2 repeated IVFA tests and an AR on the first IVFA test, the rate of AR on the second test was lower in patients who received a reduced dosage of NaFl (n = 14) compared to those with the standard dosage (n = 3) (35.7% vs 66.7%); however, this finding was not statistically significant (p = 0.5368). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of IVFA-associated ARs in this study was low. Patients who had a known IVFA-associated AR were more likely to re-experience an AR on a subsequent test compared to those who did not. In addition, a reduced NaFl dose did not significantly reduce the chance of experiencing an AR on a subsequent test, which is likely because of the insufficient power of this comparison.
Authors: Tristan T Hormel; Jie Wang; Steven T Bailey; Thomas S Hwang; David Huang; Yali Jia Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Annemieke Clementine Bouman; Damaris de Kruijf; Judith Maria Antonia Emmen; Thijs Clemens David Rettig; Maria Jolande Charlotte Kooijman-de Groot; Miriam Christina Faes Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Roxane Bunod; Alexandra Mouallem-Beziere; Francesca Amoroso; Vittorio Capuano; Karen Bitton; Cynthia Kamami-Levy; Camille Jung; Eric H Souied; Alexandra Miere Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Giselle Lynch; Adrienne W Scott; Marguerite O Linz; Ian Han; Jorge S Andrade Romo; Rachel E Linderman; Joseph Carroll; Richard B Rosen; Toco Y Chui Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Giuseppe Palmieri; Fabio Cofano; Luca Francesco Salvati; Matteo Monticelli; Pietro Zeppa; Giuseppe Di Perna; Antonio Melcarne; Roberto Altieri; Giuseppe La Rocca; Giovanni Sabatino; Giuseppe Maria Barbagallo; Fulvio Tartara; Francesco Zenga; Diego Garbossa Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Tristan T Hormel; Yali Jia; Yifan Jian; Thomas S Hwang; Steven T Bailey; Mark E Pennesi; David J Wilson; John C Morrison; David Huang Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 21.198