HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Trcka, J. Articles by Trautmann, A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Trcka, J. Articles by Trautmann, A. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Anaphylaxis to Iodinated Contrast Material: Nonallergic Hypersensitivity or IgE-Mediated Allergy?

¹ Department of Dermatology and Venerology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
² Department of Dermatology, Venerology, and Allergology, University of Würzburg, Josef Schneider Strasse 2, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. Contrast material is generally well tolerated although approximately 1% of patients who receive low-osmolar nonionic contrast material will develop anaphylaxis symptoms. Because most anaphylactic reactions are mild and nonallergic, clinically mimicking immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergy, diagnostic skin testing has been discussed controversially in the past and prophylactic pretreatment drug regimens are recommended instead. In the past 6 years, all patients with contrast material–induced anaphylaxis have been subjected to allergologic diagnostic procedures to clearly differentiate allergic and nonallergic anaphylaxis. Thus the purpose of our study was to identify and differentiate IgE-mediated allergy and nonallergic contrast material–induced hypersensitivity. Furthermore, the objective of our diagnostic procedures was not only to identify the culprit contrast material but also to find alternative contrast material for future radiologic interventions.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. We evaluated 96 patients with anaphylaxis symptoms after contrast material application using standardized intradermal skin testing. In patients with positive skin tests, the IgE-mediated allergy was further evaluated with in vitro and challenge tests.

RESULTS. In four patients (suffering from anaphylaxis grades 2 and 3) out of the 96 (4.2%), skin tests and basophil activation tests strongly suggested IgE-mediated allergy to the contrast materials iopromide (two patients), iomeprol, and iopentol. In two patients with allergies to iopromide and iomeprol, alternative nonionic monomer contrast materials were tolerated, as identified in controlled challenge tests with iopamidol and iopromide, respectively.

CONCLUSION. The evaluation of patients with contrast material–induced anaphylaxis (at least those with anaphylaxis grade 2) should always include appropriate skin tests ensuring that patients with an IgE-mediated allergy are not missed. Moreover, allergologic testing may identify a contrast material of the group of nonionic monomers that will be tolerated in future radiologic interventions.

Keywords: adverse reaction • allergy • anaphylaxis • basophil activation test • contrast media • IgE-mediated allergic hypersensitivity • radiocontrast media

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. J. Stanley Reflections on This Month's Wealth of Content Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2008; 190(3): 555 - 555. [Full Text] [PDF]