PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1290217

Current usage of nonionic contrast.

Abstract

All physicians who had billed Pennsylvania Blue Shield for at least three intravenous contrast studies during 1989 were surveyed on their use of nonionic versus ionic contrast. This surveyed group represents a diversity of hospital sizes, practice types, and group sizes. Of the 383 physician groups surveyed, responses were obtained from 285. The majority of the responding groups were radiologists (94.0%). Nonionic contrast is utilized in 41.3% of all intravenous studies. Radiologists use nonionic contrast in a much greater proportion than nonradiologists (P < 0.0001), with 17.6% of radiologists utilizing nonionic contrast in all of their patients. Conversely, 75% of nonradiologists utilize ionic contrast in all of their patients. For all physician groups surveyed, 40.3% utilize nonionic for at least 50%, while 27.6% use nonionics for more than 75% of their patients. The routine use of steroid premedication prior to the injection of ionic contrast is not a common practice. The increased utilization of nonionic contrast found in this survey may reflect the cross-section of physicians and practice types surveyed or may represent changing practice patterns among physicians utilizing contrast material.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K D Hopper, H Lambe, Y L Matthews. 1992. Current usage of nonionic contrast.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02926935

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Type, severity, frequency and management of adverse reactions associated with ultrasound contrast agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis are aimed at evaluating the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following administration of clinically approved ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) in adults and children, to assess risks in patients with cardiovascular disease and in pregnancy, and to evaluate the effectiveness of emergency management of severe ADRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PRISMA 2020 systematic review was conducted searching PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed quality. Incidence estimates were pooled when feasible, stratified by age group, contrast agent, and administration route. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies encompassing >&#x2009;1 million adults and >&#x2009;36,000 children were included, contributing multiple analytic cohorts to the quantitative synthesis. Severe acute ADRs were extremely rare (6 and 16 cases per 100,000 in adults and children, respectively) and absent following endocavitary administration in children. Non-severe acute ADRs occurred in 11 and 8 cases per 10,000 adults and children, respectively. Delayed reactions were very rare (<&#x2009;1 case per million in adults). No significant safety differences emerged between UCA products. The incidence of ADRs in patients with cardiovascular disease was analogous to the general population. No ADRs were reported in pregnant women. Standard emergency management was effective in almost all serious cases, though rare fatalities occurred. CONCLUSION: UCAs show an excellent safety profile in adults and children, with very rare severe ADRs and few non-severe, typically self-limiting reactions. Strict adherence to recommended emergency management protocols mitigates the remaining risks, supporting safe use across a broad range of clinical indications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023432668. KEY POINTS: Question What is the incidence, type, and severity of acute and delayed ADRs associated with clinically approved UCAs across different patient populations? Findings Severe acute adverse reactions are very rare, and non-severe reactions are rare and self-limiting, with no significant safety differences between adults, children, or patients with cardiovascular disease. Clinical relevant UCAs show an excellent safety profile across populations. These findings support their safe clinical use as reliable alternatives to iodine-based and gadolinium-based contrast agents in routine diagnostic imaging.

Contrast Media