AJR InPractice
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Hunter, T. B.
Right arrow Articles by Duval, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hunter, T. B.
Right arrow Articles by Duval, J. F.
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?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 163, 965-968, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents for i.v. urography and CT: safety and effect on cost

TB Hunter, J Dye and JF Duval
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ 85724.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine if the selective use of low-osmolality contrast material for excretory urography and CT is safe and if it saves money. MATERIALS AND METHODS. At the University Medical Center in Tucson, a questionnaire was developed to identify high-risk patients who would benefit from the use of a low-osmolality contrast agent. High-risk patients were defined as those with a history of a reaction to contrast material, severe allergies, asthma, severe cardiac disease, multiple myeloma, sickle cell disease, polycythemia, pheochromocytoma, or renal impairment. Beginning in March 1993, the questionnaire was given to all adult outpatients scheduled for daytime excretory urography and routine CT studies of the head and body. Only patients identified as high risk were given a low-osmolality (non- ionic) contrast agent. All other patients received high-osmolality (ionic) contrast material. The contrast agent chosen for a patient was determined by the person administering the questionnaire, usually a radiologic technologist. RESULTS. From March 1993 through December 1993, 1114 adult daytime outpatient excretory urographic and contrast- enhanced CT studies were examined at our institution. In 235 (21%) of the studies, a low-osmolality agent was used and in 879 (79%) studies, a high-osmolality agent was used. This represented a reduction in the use of low-osmolality agents from more than 90% of patients to 21%, an annual cost reduction from $288,000 to $60,480. We observed no untoward reactions to contrast material that could be specifically attributed to the increased use of high-osmolality agents. CONCLUSIONS. Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents during excretory urography and CT can provide substantial cost savings and is not associated with a significant risk of major complications.
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
K. J. Mortele, M.-R. Oliva, S. Ondategui, P. R. Ros, and S. G. Silverman
Universal Use of Nonionic Iodinated Contrast Medium for CT: Evaluation of Safety in a Large Urban Teaching Hospital
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2005; 184(1): 31 - 34.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.