OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether a decreased occurrence rate of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to contrast media in contrast-enhanced CT and MRI was attributable to appropriate criteria for patients with some diseases. A secondary aim was to elucidate safety profiles for contrast media and factors influencing the occurrence of ADRs. METHODS: Clinical data of patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT (5576 cases) or MRI (3357 cases) were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate rates of ADRs to contrast media, symptoms of ADRs, treatments for ADRs, and differences in medical history, blood test results, and other factors between patients with and without ADRs in a dental hospital. RESULTS: The rate of ADRs to contrast media was 0.54% for CT and 0.09% for MRI. The most frequent ADRs in contrast-enhanced CT or MRI were nausea and vomiting as physiologic reactions. Two serious reactions were seen for CT, but none for MRI. Significant differences between patients with and without ADRs were seen in liver function according to blood tests for CT, and in digestive disorders elicited from medical interviews for MRI. CONCLUSION: The lower occurrence rate of ADRs to contrast media in dental hospitals could be due to the adoption of appropriate criteria for patients with some diseases undergoing enhanced CT or MRI. Complete suppression of ADRs to contrast media for CT or MRI is unrealistic, so attention is warranted for patients with decreased liver function when performing enhanced CT, and for patients with digestive disorders when performing enhanced MRI.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether a decreased occurrence rate of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to contrast media in contrast-enhanced CT and MRI was attributable to appropriate criteria for patients with some diseases. A secondary aim was to elucidate safety profiles for contrast media and factors influencing the occurrence of ADRs. METHODS: Clinical data of patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT (5576 cases) or MRI (3357 cases) were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate rates of ADRs to contrast media, symptoms of ADRs, treatments for ADRs, and differences in medical history, blood test results, and other factors between patients with and without ADRs in a dental hospital. RESULTS: The rate of ADRs to contrast media was 0.54% for CT and 0.09% for MRI. The most frequent ADRs in contrast-enhanced CT or MRI were nausea and vomiting as physiologic reactions. Two serious reactions were seen for CT, but none for MRI. Significant differences between patients with and without ADRs were seen in liver function according to blood tests for CT, and in digestive disorders elicited from medical interviews for MRI. CONCLUSION: The lower occurrence rate of ADRs to contrast media in dental hospitals could be due to the adoption of appropriate criteria for patients with some diseases undergoing enhanced CT or MRI. Complete suppression of ADRs to contrast media for CT or MRI is unrealistic, so attention is warranted for patients with decreased liver function when performing enhanced CT, and for patients with digestive disorders when performing enhanced MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adverse Drug Reaction; Contrast Media; Hospital Dental Service; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; X-Ray Computed Tomography
Authors: Christoph U Herborn; Elmar Honold; Michael Wolf; Jörn Kemper; Sonja Kinner; Gerhard Adam; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: G Liccardi; G Lobefalo; E Di Florio; C Di Iorio; L Occhiochiuso; L Romano; G Savoia; R M Massa; G D'Amato Journal: J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Frank G Shellock; John R Parker; Carole Venetianer; Gianpaolo Pirovano; Alberto Spinazzi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: S G O Johansson; Thomas Bieber; Ronald Dahl; Peter S Friedmann; Bobby Q Lanier; Richard F Lockey; Cassim Motala; Jose A Ortega Martell; Thomas A E Platts-Mills; Johannes Ring; Frank Thien; Paul Van Cauwenberge; Hywel C Williams Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.793