AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WITTEN, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by HARTMAN, G. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by WITTEN, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by HARTMAN, G. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

ACUTE REACTIONS TO UROGRAPHIC CONTRAST MEDIUM

INCIDENCE, CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RELATIONSHIP TO HISTORY OF HYPERSENSITIVITY STATES

DAVID M. WITTEN M.D.1, FREDERICK D. HIRSCH M.D.2, and GLEN W. HARTMAN M.D.3

1 University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama.
2 Corvallis, Oregon.
3 Mayo Clinic and Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Thirty-two thousand, nine hundred sixty-four consecutive patients were studied with reference to the incidence and clinical characteristics of reactions to a single urographic contrast medium. Mild side effects were recorded in 5.1 per cent and acute reactions in 1.72 per cent. Severe reactions occurred in 0.09 per cent with 1 death from cardiac arrest.

Acute reactions are unpredictable on the basis of history or any known pretesting technique. Pretesting itself is hazardous and gives a false sense of security to both physician and patient. As a consequence of these facts, it is evident that the presently available pretesting techniques serve no useful purpose and should be abandoned.

The first 9,934 patients were studied with special reference to an association between a history of "allergy" or "hypersensitivity" and acute reactions. Reactions were 2.5 times (3.0 per cent as compared to 1.2 per cent) more frequent in patients with a positive history of "allergy." No increase in severity of reactions was noted. With a history of prior mild to moderate reaction to urographic contrast medium, reactions occurred in 20 per cent. No evidence of increasing sensitivity with repeated use was found.

It is concluded that neither a positive history of previous "allergy" nor previous mild to moderate reaction from contrast medium is a contraindication to excretory urography.

Acute life threatening reactions, although very rare, can occur unexpectedly in any patient, at any time. The radiologic team doing excretory urography must be well trained in their recognition and treatment. Emergency equipment, adequate to cope with any reaction,2 must be on hand and available for immediate use in every radiologic suite where excretory urography is done.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. W. Katzberg
"Acute Reactions to Urographic Contrast Medium: Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, and Relationship to History of Hypersensitivity States"--A Commentary
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): 1431 - 1432.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1973 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.