American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 156, 825-832, Copyright © 1991 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

The risks of death and of severe nonfatal reactions with high- vs low- osmolality contrast media: a meta-analysis

JJ Caro, E Trindade and M McGregor
Department of Medicine, McGill University, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Estimates of the risks associated with the use of radiologic contrast agents frequently are based on a subjective review of some of the numerous articles that have been published on the subject. We have chosen instead to synthesize the existing evidence in an objective, quantitative way by statistically combining the data from individual studies through meta-analysis. Although meta-analysis is subject to whatever biases may exist in the underlying data, and may inappropriately pool data from studies with significant differences, the estimates draw proportionately from each original study and, in addition, gain considerable precision owing to the increased amounts of data considered. Using this technique, we analyzed the data from all available original reports appearing since 1980. Crude rates derived from all reports were used to estimate risks with high-osmolality media. Weighted rate differences based on comparative studies only were used in the estimation of the reductions in risk obtainable with low- osmolality media. The risk of death with high-osmolality media was 0.9 per 100,000 uses (95% confidence interval, 0.3-2.6 per 100,000). The difference in risk produced by using low-osmolality media was 0 (95% confidence interval, -1.1 to 1.1 per 100,000). The risk of severe reactions associated with high-osmolality media was 157 per 100,000 uses (95% confidence interval, 144-172 per 100,000). The reduction in risk that can be obtained by the use of low-osmolality media was estimated to be 126 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval, 110-142 per 100,000). This meta-analysis shows that the risk of death is very low with either type of contrast material and that there is no difference between them. Severe nonfatal reactions with high-osmolality media, although more frequent, are still rare; approximately 80% of them can be prevented by using low-osmolality media.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Ladapo, U. Hoffmann, F. Bamberg, J. T. Nagurney, D. M. Cutler, M. C. Weinstein, and G. S. Gazelle Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary MDCT in the Triage of Patients with Acute Chest Pain Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 455 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Trcka, C. Schmidt, C. S. Seitz, E.-B. Brocker, G. E. Gross, and A. Trautmann Anaphylaxis to Iodinated Contrast Material: Nonallergic Hypersensitivity or IgE-Mediated Allergy? Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2008; 190(3): 666 - 670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Varma, K. Price, V. Jayakrishnan, B. Manickam, and G. Kessell Anaesthetic considerations for interventional neuroradiology Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2007; 99(1): 75 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Ozden, C. Gogus, K. Turkolmez, and C. Yagci Is Fluid Ingestion Really Necessary During Ultrasonography for Detecting Ureteral Stones?: A Prospective Randomized Study J. Ultrasound Med., December 1, 2005; 24(12): 1651 - 1657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D. Furtado, D. A. Aguirre, C. B. Sirlin, D. Dang, S. K. Stamato, P. Lee, F. Sani, M. A. Brown, D. L. Levin, and G. Casola Whole-Body CT Screening: Spectrum of Findings and Recommendations in 1192 Patients Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 385 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Visser, M. C. J. M. Kock, K. M. Kuntz, M. C. Donaldson, G. S. Gazelle, and M. G. Myriam Hunink Cost-effectiveness Targets for Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography in the Work-up of Patients with Intermittent Claudication Radiology, June 1, 2003; 227(3): 647 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. S. Liem, M. C. J. M. Kock, J. N. M. Ijzermans, W. Weimar, K. Visser, and M.G. M. Hunink Living Renal Donors: Optimizing the Imaging Strategy--Decision- and Cost-effectiveness Analysis Radiology, January 1, 2003; 226(1): 53 - 62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Yousem and B. C. Trinh Injection Rates for Neuroangiography: Results of a Survey AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., November 1, 2001; 22(10): 1838 - 1840. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. S. Medina, K. M. Kuntz, and S. Pomeroy Children With Headache Suspected of Having a Brain Tumor: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diagnostic Strategies Pediatrics, August 1, 2001; 108(2): 255 - 263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. T. Cochran, K. Bomyea, and J. W. Sayre Trends in Adverse Events After IV Administration of Contrast Media Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2001; 176(6): 1385 - 1388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. G.M. Hunink, K. M. Kuntz, K. E. Fleischmann, and T. J. Brady Noninvasive Imaging for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease: Focusing the Development of New Diagnostic Technology Ann Intern Med, November 2, 1999; 131(9): 673 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. D. Jacobson and C. J. Rosenquist The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents: Technological Change and Defensive Medicine Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 1996; 21(2): 243 - 266. [Abstract] [PDF]