Early and late reactions after the use of iopamidol 340, ioxaglate 320, and iodixanol 320 in cardiac catheterization

Iodixanol activation of mast cells: Implications in the pathogenesis of iodixanol-induced delayed cutaneous adverse reactions

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) is widely used in radiological examination and interventional therapy. In the commonly used ICM, iodixanol is considered to be the safer one. However, compared with other ICMs, it has a higher incidence of delayed cutaneous adverse reactions. The underlying mechanisms are unclear. In this study, mice with positive allergic reactions were selected based on the mouse clinical allergy symptom score and skin and blood samples taken 1, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h after ICMs (6 g iodine/kg) injection for histological and blood analyses. ICMs-induced pseudo-allergic reactions were investigated through in vivo intravital vascular imaging and passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA) not mediated by IgE and through, calcium imaging degranulation of mast cells (MCs), and western blot assays in vitro. Results shows iodixanol-induced systemic anaphylaxis caused severe extravasation of plasma proteins and degranulation of skin MCs, and increased levels of plasma histamine, cytokines and inflammatory chemokines. Mechanistically, iodixanol increases degranulation of MCs and promotes the synthesis of inflammatory factors by activating PLC-γ and PI3K-related pathways. Trigonelline inhibit iodixanol-induced MC-related pseudo-allergic reactions in vitro and in vivo. These results suggest that mice in the iodixanol group had a higher incidence of delayed cutaneous reactions, characterized by cytokine release over time and delayed cutaneous MC degranulation. Iodixanol's delayed cutaneous adverse reactions may be due to a delayed phase of MC-related pseudo-allergic reactions. Trigonelline revealed anti-allergic activity in iodixanol-induced MC-related pseudo-allergic reactions.

Diagnosing and Managing Patients with Reactions to Radiocontrast Media

Purpose of the review

Iodinated radio contrast media (RCM) belong to the most common elicitors of drug hypersensitivity reactions (HR). Urticaria or anaphylaxis may occur ≤ 1(−6) hour(s) (immediate HR) and exanthems (non-immediate HR) develop > 6 h after application of RCM. Evidence for an immunologic mechanism of RCM HR against the different RCM benzene ring molecules and the benefit of allergological testing in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions is progressively increasing.

Recent findings

Positive skin tests can confirm allergy in patients with previous reactions to RCM and help to select alternative better tolerated RCMs. Severe hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by an allergic mechanism, whereas the majority of non-severe reactions appear to be non-allergic. Skin testing is highly recommended to help identify allergic hypersensitivity reactions and to select alternatives. Using structurally different RCM is more effective than premedication for the prevention of future reactions. Drug provocation tests to RCM have been increasingly used, but are not yet standardized among different centers.

Summary

In patients with previous severe hypersensitivity reactions to RCM, skin testing is recommended. For future RCM-enhanced examinations in patients with previous reactions, structurally different, skin test-negative preparations should be applied. Drug provocation tests do confirm or exclude RCM hypersensitivity or may demonstrate tolerability of alternative RCMs.

Manual der Arbeitsgruppe Interventionelle Kardiologie (AGIK) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz- und Kreislaufforschung e. V. (DGK)

Dieses Manual zur diagnostischen Herzkatheteruntersuchung (Teil 1) ist eine Anwendungsempfehlung für interventionell tätige Ärzte, die den gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand unter Berücksichtigung neuester Studienergebnisse wiedergibt. Hierzu wurde in den einzelnen Kapiteln speziell auf die Alltagstauglichkeit der Empfehlungen geachtet, sodass dieses Manual jedem interventionell tätigen Kardiologen als Entscheidungshilfe im Herzkatheterlabor dienen soll. Trotz der von vielen Experten eingebrachten praktischen Hinweise kann dieses Manual dennoch nicht die ärztliche Evaluation des individuellen Patienten ersetzen und damit eine Anpassung der Diagnostik bzw. Therapie ersetzen.

Nonrenal Complications of Contrast Media

Injection of contrast media is the foundation of invasive and interventional cardiovascular practice. Iodine-based contrast was first used in the 1920s for urologic procedures and examinations. The initially used agents had high ionic and osmolar concentrations, which led to significant side effects, namely nausea, vomiting, and hypotension. Newer contrast agents had lower ionic concentrations and lower osmolarity. Modifications to the ionic structure and iodine content led to the development of ionic low-osmolar, nonionic low-osmolar, and nonionic iso-osmolar contrast media. Contemporary contrast agents are better tolerated and produce fewer major side effects.

Safety and tolerability of iobitridol in cerebral angiography: a prospective, multicenter study

Background

To date, only a few data have demonstrated the safety of iodinated contrast media for cerebral angiography.

Purpose

To assess contrast-related adverse events after cerebral angiography using iobitridol.

Material and Methods

A total of 790 patients who underwent cerebral angiography at three tertiary hospitals in the Republic of Korea between November 2017 and October 2018 were prospectively enrolled in this study. We interviewed all patients and recorded their symptoms before they left the interventional clinic after the angiography procedure and during the seven-day follow-up visit. The primary endpoints were acute (within 1 h) and delayed (1 h–7 days) adverse events associated with iobitridol injection. We also visually graded the radiographic density and image quality as secondary endpoints.

Results

Acute adverse events were more common than delayed adverse events. Most adverse events were either mild (96.5%) or moderate (3.45%). Among the contrast-related adverse events, feeling of warmth (59.1%) and altered taste (17.5%) were the most common acute events, whereas headache (41.9%) and allergic skin reactions (20.0%) were the most common delayed events. All cerebral angiography showed optimal density and good/excellent image quality.

Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that iobitridol is a safe and effective iodinated contrast medium for use in cerebral angiography.

Adverse reactions during procedures: Hypersensitivity to contrast agents and dyes

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an overview of the literature on hypersensitivity reactions during procedures to commonly used contrast agents and dyes. A synthesis of current knowledge on clinical symptoms, epidemiology and risk factors, pathomechanism, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to these substances is presented.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through Medline. Included were peer-reviewed articles written in English between 2000 and 2019.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Relevant clinical studies, experimental studies, and review articles have been selected. Additionally, case reports have been included if they carried significant information about rare clinical forms of hypersensitivity reactions, disease mechanisms, or therapy.

RESULTS

An allergological workup is only indicated for patients with a history of immediate (IHR) and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHR) but not for toxic or unrelated adverse events. Skin tests with or without experimental cellular laboratory tests in patients with previous reactions can provide evidence for an allergic mechanism. Positive skin tests indicating allergy are more common in severe reactions. If the adverse event was allergic, skin testing of alternatives is helpful for the selection of other contrast agents for future procedures. Premedication alone may be insufficient in these cases, and breakthrough reactions occur. For nonallergic reactions, change of contrast agent and premedication is often but not always sufficient to suppress reactions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with previous NIHR or IHR, especially moderate and severe IHR, needing potential re-administration of contrast agents should be skin tested to identify an allergic mechanism as well as alternative agents to be used for future procedures.

Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity after intra-arterial injection of iodinated contrast media: a prospective study in patients with coronary angiography

OBJECTIVES

While hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to intravenously administered iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been well studied, not much is known about HSR to intra-arterially administered ICM.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate coronary angiography (CAG)-induced ICM hypersensitivity in patients who underwent CAG using ICM including ioversol, a low-osmolar non-ionic monomer, and iodixanol, an iso-osmolar non-ionic dimer. The HSR were investigated through in-patient monitoring after CAG and telephone interview after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 714 patients were enrolled during the observation period, of whom 26 (3.6%) showed immediate HSR and 108 (15.1%) showed delayed HSR. With regard to severity, proportion of immediate HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 57.7%, 38.5%, and 3.8%, respectively, whereas that of delayed HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 85.2%, 13.9%, and 0.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that previous intra-arterial exposure to ICM was an independent risk factor for immediate HSR (odds ratio (OR) 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-6.96; p = 0.015). Iodixanol was a significant risk factor for delayed HSR (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.07-2.43; p = 0.024) and correlated with a higher incidence of delayed HSR within 24-h post-ICM administration compared to ioversol.

CONCLUSION

The incidence rate of immediate and delayed HSR in intra-arterially administered ICM was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. Previous exposure to intra-arterially administered contrast media was a significant risk factor for immediate HSR. Compared to ioversol, iodixanol was associated with relatively earlier and more frequent delayed HSR.

KEY POINTS

• In this prospective study, the incidence of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity in intra-arterial injection of contrast media during coronary angiography was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. • Delayed hypersensitivity reactions were more common but less severe than immediate hypersensitivity reactions during coronary angiography. • Previous exposure to ICM via intra-arterial route was a significant risk factor for immediate hypersensitivity to intra-arterial contrast medium.

Subjective and objective image differences in pediatric computed tomography cardiac angiography using lower iodine concentration

BACKGROUND

Several recent studies showed the optimal contrast enhancement with a low-concentration and iso-osmolar contrast media in both adult and pediatric patients. However, low contrast media concentrations are not routinely used due to concerns of suboptimal enhancement of cardiac structures and small vessels.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of using iso-osmolar contrast media containing a low iodine dose for CT cardiac angiography at 80 kilovolts (kVp) in neonates and infants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The iodixanol 270 group consisted of 79 CT scans and the iopromide 370 group of 62 CT scans in patients ≤1 year old. Objective measurement of the contrast enhancement was analyzed and contrast-to-noise ratios of the ascending aorta and left ventricle were calculated. Regarding subjective measurement, a four-point scale system was devised to evaluate degrees of contrast enhancement, image noise, motion artifact and overall image quality of each image set. Reader performance for correctly differentiating iodixanol 270 and iopromide 370 by visual assessment was evaluated.

RESULTS

Group objective and subjective measurements were nonsignificantly different. Overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for correctly differentiating iodixanol 270 and iopromide 370 by visual assessment were 42.8%, 59%, and 50%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The application of iodixanol 270 achieved optimal enhancement for performing pediatric cardiac CT angiography at 80 kVp in neonates and infants. Objective measurements of contrast enhancement and subjective image quality assessments were not statistically different in the iodixanol 270 and iopromide 370 groups.

Intra-arterial and intravenous applications of Iosimenol 340 injection, a new non-ionic, dimeric, iso-osmolar radiographic contrast medium: phase 2 experience

BACKGROUND

Iosimenol 340 injection is a new, dimeric, iso-osmolar, iodinated contrast medium for X-ray angiography.

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and efficacy of iosimenol injection to iodixanol injection in two randomized, controlled phase 2 trials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-four adult patients were enrolled in the two trials, one for evaluation during arteriography and the other for evaluation during computed tomography. Safety was compared by assessing adverse events, vital signs, ECGs, and laboratory parameters. Efficacy was assessed as X-ray attenuation in the computed tomography (CT) trial and as the quality of contrast enhancement in the arteriography trial.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in terms of safety or efficacy between the two contrast media. Both were well tolerated upon intravenous as well as intra-arterial injection. The most common adverse event was a feeling of warmth (observed in 35.1% of the patients with Iosimenol injection and 44.3% with iodixanol injection).

CONCLUSION

Iosimenol upon intravenous as well as upon intra-arterial injection exhibits a safety profile and shows an efficacy similar to that of iodixanol.

Hypersensitivity to contrast media and dyes

This article updates current knowledge on hypersensitivity reactions to diagnostic contrast media and dyes. After application of a single iodinated radiocontrast medium (RCM), gadolinium-based contrast medium, fluorescein, or a blue dye, a hypersensitivity reaction is not a common finding; however, because of the high and still increasing frequency of those procedures, patients who have experienced severe reactions are nevertheless frequently encountered in allergy departments. Evidence on allergologic testing and management is best for iodinated RCM, limited for blue dyes, and insufficient for fluorescein. Skin tests can be helpful in the diagnosis of patients with hypersensitivity reactions to these compounds.

Nonrenal Complications of Contrast Media

Nonrenal complications of contrast media are caused by chemotoxic or anaphylactoid reactions related to the contrast agent used. Chemotoxicity is mainly attributed to ionic concentration and osmolality. Anaphylactoid reactions are typically caused by direct activation of basophils, mast cells, and complement rather than an observable antigen-antibody interaction, and may be acute or delayed. History of an adverse reaction following prior exposure is the strongest predictor of a subsequent adverse reaction to contrast. Premedication regimens of corticosteroids or antihistamines can lower the risk of repeat adverse reactions. Treatment of anaphylactoid reactions depends on the severity of symptoms.

Side effects of radiographic contrast media: pathogenesis, risk factors, and prevention

Radiocontrast media (RCM) are medical drugs used to improve the visibility of internal organs and structures in X-ray based imaging techniques. They may have side effects ranging from itching to a life-threatening emergency, known as contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). We define CIN as acute renal failure occurring within 24-72 hrs of exposure to RCM that cannot be attributed to other causes. It usually occurs in patients with preexisting renal impairment and diabetes. The mechanisms underlying CIN include reduction in medullary blood flow leading to hypoxia and direct tubule cell damage and the formation of reactive oxygen species. Identification of patients at high risk for CIN is important. We have reviewed the risk factors and procedures for prevention, providing a long list of references enabling readers a deep evaluation of them both. The first rule to follow in patients at risk of CIN undergoing radiographic procedure is monitoring renal function by measuring serum creatinine and calculating the eGFR before and once daily for 5 days after the procedure. It is advised to discontinue potentially nephrotoxic medications, to choose radiocontrast media at lowest dosage, and to encourage oral or intravenous hydration. In high-risk patients N-acetylcysteine may also be given.

Risk factors for adverse reactions from contrast agents for computed tomography

Background

Symptoms of an adverse reaction to contrast agents for computed tomography are diverse ranging, and sometimes serious. The goal of this study is to create a scoring rule to predict adverse reactions to contrast agents used in computed tomography.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients undergoing contrast enhanced CT scan for 7 years. The subjects were randomly divided into either a derivation or validation group. Baseline data and clinically relevant factors were collected from the electronic chart. Primary outcome was any acute adverse reactions to contrast media, observed for during 24 hours after administration. All potential candidate predictors were included in a forward stepwise logistic regression model. Prediction scores were assigned based on β coefficient. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn, and the area under the curve (AUC) and incidence of acute adverse reactions at each point were obtained. The same process was performed in the validation group.

Results

36,472 patients underwent enhanced CT imaging: 20,000 patients in the derivation group and 16,472 in the validation group. A total of 409 (2.0%, 95% CI:1.9-2.3) and 347 (2.1%, 95% CI:1.9-2.3) acute adverse reactions were seen in the derivation and validation groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that prior adverse reaction to contrast agents, urticaria, an allergic history to drugs other than contrast agents, contrast agent concentration >70%, age <50 years, and total contrast agent dose >65 g were significant predictors of an acute adverse reaction. AUC was 0.70 (95% CI:0.67-0.73) and 0.67 (95% CI:0.64-0.70) in the derivation and validation groups.

Conclusions

We suggest a prediction model consisting of six predictors for acute adverse reactions to contrast agents used in CT.

Clinical pharmacology, uses, and adverse reactions of iodinated contrast agents: a primer for the non-radiologist

Iodinated contrast agents have been in use since the 1950s to facilitate radiographic imaging modalities. Physicians in almost all specialties will either administer these agents or care for patients who have received these drugs. Different iodinated contrast agents vary greatly in their properties, uses, and toxic effects. Therefore, clinicians should be at least superficially familiar with the clinical pharmacology, administration, risks, and adverse effects associated with iodinated contrast agents. This primer offers the non-radiologist physician the opportunity to gain insight into the use of this class of drugs.

Patient discomfort associated with the use of intra-arterial iodinated contrast media: a meta-analysis of comparative randomized controlled trials

Background

Discomfort characterized by pain and warmth are common adverse effects associated with the use of intra-arterial iodinated contrast media (CM). The objective of this review was to pool patient-reported outcomes available from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the discomfort rates associated with iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM; i.e., iodixanol) to those reported with various low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM).

Methods

A review of the literature published between 1990 and 2009 available through Medline, Medline Preprints, Embase, Biological Abstracts, BioBase, Cab Abstracts, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Life Sciences Collection, Inside Conferences, Energy Database, Engineering Index and Technology Collection was performed to compare rates of discomfort associated with the use of the IOCM (iodixanol) vs. various LOCM agents in head-to-head RCTs. All trials with a Jadad score ≥2 that reported patient discomfort data following intra-arterial administration of CM were reviewed, coded, and extracted.

Results

A total of 22 RCTs (n = 8087) were included. Overall discomfort (regardless of severity) was significantly different between patients receiving IOCM and various LOCMs (risk difference [RD] -0.049; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.076, -0.021; p = 0.001). IOCM was favored over all LOCMs combined with a summary RD value of -0.188 (95% CI: -0.265, -0.112; p < 0.001) for incidence of pain, regardless of severity. A greater reduction in the magnitude of pain was observed with IOCM (iodixanol), particularly with selective limb and carotid/intracerebral procedures. Similarly, the meta-analysis of warmth sensation, regardless of severity, favored IOCM over LOCMs with an RD of -0.043 (95% CI: -0.074, -0.011; p = 0.008). A positive linear relationship was observed between the discomfort effect size and age and a negative relationship with increasing proportion of women. The opposite trends were observed with warmth sensation.

Conclusions

IOCM was associated with less frequent and severe patient discomfort during intra-arterial administration. These data support differences in osmolality as a possible determinant of CM discomfort.

Delayed adverse reaction to contrast-enhanced CT: a prospective single-center study comparison to control group without enhancement

PURPOSE

To prospectively assess the incidence of delayed adverse reactions (DARs) in patients undergoing contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) with the low osmolar nonionic contrast agent iohexol and compare with the incidence of DARs in patients undergoing unenhanced CT as control subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval and informed written consent for this prospective study were obtained. The study was HIPAA compliant. Patients undergoing CT for routine indications were enrolled from a random next-available scheduling template by an on-site clinical trials monitor. All subjects received a questionnaire asking them to indicate any DAR occurring later than 1 hour after their examination. Sixteen manifestations were listed and included rash, skin redness, skin swelling, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness, among others. To ensure maximal surveillance, a clinical trials coordinator initiated direct telephone contact for further assessment. Patients suspected of having moderately severe cutaneous reactions were invited to return for a complete dermatologic clinical assessment including skin biopsy, if indicated. Statistical analysis was performed by using a two-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, a logistic regression utilizing a chi(2) test to adjust for sex and age, and a two-sided Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

A total of 539 patients (258 receiving iohexol and 281 not receiving contrast material) were enrolled. DARs were observed in 37 (14.3%) of 258 subjects receiving iohexol and in seven (2.5%) of 281 subjects in the control group (P < .0001, chi(2) test) after adjusting for sex and age. Specific manifestations of DARs that were significantly more frequent at contrast-enhanced CT were skin rash (P = .0311), skin redness (P = .0055), skin swelling (P = .0117), and headache (P = .0246). DARs involving the skin included generalized rashes of the face, neck, chest, back, and extremities and were often associated with swelling, erythema, and pruritus.

CONCLUSION

This study substantiates a frequent occurrence of DARs at contrast-enhanced CT compared with that in control subjects. Continued growth in the use of contrast-enhanced CT suggests a need for greater awareness and attention to prevention and management.

Comparison of iodixanol and iohexol in patients undergoing intravenous pyelography: a prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

Nephropathy associated with contrast medium exposure is a well-known complication of IVP. However, it is uncertain whether iso-osmolar non-iodinated contrast medium (iodixanol) is less nephrotoxic than low-osmolar contrast medium (iohexol).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center, double-blind, prospective study, 50 patients undergoing IVP were randomized into two groups receiving different contrast medium: iodixanol and iohexol. Patients in high risk for contrast nephropathy were included, 28 with renal insufficiency and 19 with diabetes mellitus. We compared the nephrotoxic effect (contrast nephropathy), complement and cytokines profile between the iodixanol and iohexol groups. The mean volume of contrast medium in each IVP procedure was 0.8 mL/kg.

RESULTS

The incidence of contrast nephropathy was 4 percent among all patients (one iodixanol and one iohexol). We found no significant differences in contrast nephropathy and allergic reactions between the two groups. There was no significant difference in cytokine profiles in both groups (p > 0.05).The incidence of allergic reaction was 16 percent among all patients. Twelve percent (3/25) had late reaction after iohexol exposure compared to four percent (2/25) with iodixanol (p = 1.0). One patient had severe skin rash due to late adverse reaction after iodixanol. No mortality was found.

CONCLUSIONS

New iodixanol and iohexol contrast medium for routine IVP examination are safe and have low nephrotoxicity profile, especially in elderly or high-risk patients. Iodixanol contrast medium has an increased risk to induce severe late adverse reaction compared to iohexol. Allergic reaction may be the main adverse effect after contrast medium infusion.

The safety of deFinity and Optison for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to define the incidence of severe adverse events after exposure to ultrasound contrast agents.

METHODS

Data between January 1, 2001, and September 30, 2007, were collected using invited responses to an on-line web-based questionnaire from 1 general and 12 cardiac ultrasound laboratories. During a period of 4.5 +/- 2.4 years, a total of 66,164 doses of Definity (Lantheus Medical Imaging, North Billerica, MA) and 12,219 doses of Optison (GE Healthcare, Buckinghamshire, UK) were administered, reflecting contrast use in 5% of transthoracic and 28% of stress echocardiographic procedures. More than 10,000 doses were given to critically ill patients in intensive care unit settings or to patients with acute chest pain of suspected cardiac origin. The median age of patients who received an ultrasound contrast agent was 60 years, 49% were male, and the mean body mass index was 32 +/- 1.4 g/m(-2).

RESULTS

Severe reactions that were considered "probably" related to an ultrasound contrast agent developed in 8 patients (0.01%), all of whom were outpatients, and 4 (0.006%) of these were consistent with anaphylactoid reactions. There were no deaths reported. All patients recovered with treatment. No serious events were seen in inpatients.

CONCLUSION

This multicenter, retrospective analysis includes the largest number of doses of ultrasound contrast agents ever published and a large number of patients evaluated in a wide variety of settings, including the critically ill. It shows that these agents have a good safety profile in both cardiac and abdominal ultrasound applications. The incidence of severe adverse reactions to ultrasound contrast agents is no greater, and may be lower, than that reported for contrast agents commonly used in other cardiac imaging tests.

Safety aspects of iodinated contrast media related to their physicochemical properties: a pharmacoepidemiology study in two Tuscany hospitals

BACKGROUND

More than 380,000 angiographic procedures are performed every year in Italian hospitals, with an increase rate of 8% per year. Although contrast media (CM) are considered relatively safe, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remain an important issue.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to quantify the incidence of immediate and delayed nonrenal ADRs to iodinated CM in an Italian cohort and to evaluate whether their different physicochemical properties are able to affect the incidence of immediate or delayed ADRs.

METHODS

A prospective intensive monitoring study was conducted on a cohort of patients undergoing radiodiagnostic procedures with iodinated CM enrolled in two hospitals in Tuscany, Italy. To evaluate both immediate (within 1 h after CM administration) and delayed (>1 h to 1 week after CM administration) ADRs to CM, two questionnaires were administered. Adverse events (AEs) were analyzed to check the causality assessment between CM and ADR. If more than one symptom occurred in the same patient, they were treated as a single event.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred and fourteen subjects who were exposed to iodinated CM completed the questionnaires. Mean age [standard deviation (SD)] was 65.4 (13.3) years, and 57.9% were male patients. A total of 178 [11.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 10.1-13.4] ADRs were reported. Thirty-four (2.2%; 1.5-3.1) and 144 (9.5%; 8.0-11.1) developed immediate and delayed ADRs, respectively. Both types of ADRs were experienced by six subjects (0.4%; 0.1-0.8). One hundred and seventy-six cases (98.8%; 96.0-99.8) were classified as possible and two (1.1%; 0.1-3.9) as probable ADRs. Monomeric low-osmolal (iopromide, iomeprol, iobitridol) and dimeric iso-osmolal (iodixanol) groups mainly reported delayed allergy-like ADRs of mild severity. Only one immediate reaction was severe. Multivariate analysis confirmed a higher risk of immediate reactions occurring for monomeric CM (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.2-15.7), whereas the risk of delayed ADRs was significantly higher for the dimeric group (OR 1.8; 1.1-2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Monomeric CM were more frequently involved in immediate ADRs, whereas dimeric CM were involved in delayed reactions. Although severe life-threatening ADRs to CM were confirmed to be rare, due to the large use of these drugs, they still retain clinical and epidemiological significance.

Iosimenol, a new non-ionic dimeric contrast medium, does not induce immunoreactivity in the popliteal lymph node assay

Animal studies in mice were conducted to determine the potential immunoreactivity of the new non-ionic dimeric contrast medium (CM) iosimenol using the PLNA and flow cytometric analyses. Comparative studies were performed with iodixanol. The known immune-reactive substance strepozotocin (STZ) and vehicle injections served as positive and negative controls, respectively. Our experiments did not show any immunological effect of iosimenol, concluding that the new CM iosimenol may be beneficial for use in high-risk patients.

Evaluation of the nephrotoxicity of iodixanol in patients with predisposing factors to contrast medium induced nephropathy referred for contrast enhanced computed tomography

To determine the risk of developing contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) in intermediate-risk patients receiving iodixanol, an iso-osmolar, dimeric non-ionic contrast agent, for CT in a clinical setting. Hundred consecutive patients referred for a contrast enhanced CT with a serum creatinine concentration>1.1mg/dl and/or a glomerular filtration rate (GFR)<90ml/min were included. Exclusion criteria were a serum creatinine>2.0mg/dl and a GFR<30ml/min or concurrent nephrotoxic agents. Between 60 and 140ml (mean 97+/-42ml) iodixanol (320mgI/ml) were administered at a flow of 2.5-3ml/s. Hydration with 500ml NaCl i.v. was performed before and after contrast injection. Follow-up was completed in 99 patients (age, 64+/-13 years, 68 men). CIN was defined as increase in serum creatinine concentration +0.5mg/dl or >25% above baseline within 72h after contrast administration. Serum creatinine concentration and GFR were 1.40+/-0.22, 1.29+/-0.29, and 1.26+/-0.29mg/dl and 52.2+/-13.9, 51.3+/-21.1, and 51.5+/-15.1ml/min on days 0, 3, and 7, respectively. Three out of 99 (3%) patients who received 90-110ml iodixanol revealed a CIN on day 3 without persistence on day 7. No specific therapy was needed. One out of 99 patients reported an exanthema on days 3 and 7. With the use of iodixanol in intermediate-risk patients, 3% of the patients develop CIN on day 3 without need for a specific therapy or persistence on day 7.

A prospective randomised controlled trial to determine the early and late reactions after the use of iopamidol 340 (Niopam™) and iomeprol 350 (Iomeron®) in cardiac catheterisation

A new generation of intravascular contrast agents, the non-ionic monomers have safety profiles that are superior to those of older ionic compounds. There are, however, significant differences between these agents.

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of early (<24h) and late (>24h to 7 days) reactions to two non-ionic contrast agents currently used during cardiac catheterisation: iopamidol 340 (Niopam Bracco UK Ltd.) and iomeprol 350 (Iomeron Bracco UK Ltd.).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, double blinded trial. One thousand nine hundred and eighty-five patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation received one of the following contrast agents on a weekly basis: iopamidol 340 (Niopam) and iomeprol 350 (Iomeron). Reactions that were possibly related to the contrast agents were recorded on predefined data collection forms during the first 24h of the procedure (early reaction) and after 24h to 7 days (late reaction) by means of a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were matched in both the groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of heat sensation experienced between the two groups (p=0.1). Early non-heat reactions occurred in 2.7% of patients receiving iopamidol 340 (Niopam) and 4% of those receiving iomeprol 350 (Iomeron) (p=0.1). Significant electrocardiographic changes were recorded in 1.7% of patients who received iopamidol 340 (Niopam), and 1% of those who received iomeprol 350 (Iomeron) (p=0.2). Bradycardia occurred more frequently in the iopamidol 350 group (0.8%) compared to the iomeprol 350 group (0.1%) p=0.02. Late reactions occurred in 16.2% of those receiving iopamidol 340 (Niopam) and 21.7% of those receiving iomeprol 350 (Iomeron) (p=0.02). A total of 23 (3.7%) patients in the iopamidol group and 39 (6.2%) patients in the iomeprol group reported nausea, p=0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of early adverse reactions was similar with the two non-ionic contrast agents. Although bradycardia was slightly more frequent using iopamidol 340, nausea was reported more commonly 24h after the procedure in patients receiving Iomeron 350 (Iomeron). We conclude that there were only minor clinical differences between these agents; both are safe and well tolerated.

Fixed drug eruption induced by an iodinated non-ionic X-ray contrast medium: a practical approach to identify the causative agent and to prevent its recurrence

We describe the case of a 61-year-old physician who developed a fixed drug eruption (FDE) after i.v. administration of a non-ionic monomeric iodinated X-ray contrast medium (CM) (iopromide). During CM injection, a sensation of heat occurred, which was most intense in the right inguinal region. Four hours later, the FDE arose with a red macule of approximately 2 cm in diameter covering a dermal infiltration in the right inguinal region, and enlarged up to a final size of 15 x 8 cm, accompanied by a burning sensation. The patient's history revealed a similar reaction in the same localization and of the same clinical appearance after CM injection 1 year before. Patch testing 4 months later revealed positive reactions to iomeprol and iohexol. Iopamidol injection for another CT examination 23 months later was well tolerated. Based on these results, we suggest patch testing after CM-induced FDE, which could help to select a CM for future CT examinations. Late onset of adverse CM reactions may manifest as FDE. Patch testing within the previous skin reaction area is the diagnostic tool that should be used to confirm the suspected agent, possible cross-reacting agents and well-tolerated agents.

Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosis as a Delayed Dermatotoxic Reaction to IV-Administered Nonionic Contrast Media

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to report three delayed, generalized, and protracted cutaneous reactions in two patients that are compatible with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) after contrast medium administration.

CONCLUSION

Radiologists and referring clinicians need to be aware of late adverse reactions to the administration of contrast media and to distinguish these from other possible causes.

Adverse Events after Unenhanced and Monomeric and Dimeric Contrast-enhanced CT: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate adverse events (AEs) in patients who underwent nonionic monomeric or dimeric contrast media-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and to compare these effects with AEs in patients who underwent unenhanced CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Local ethics committee approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients were randomly assigned to the dimeric group, monomeric group, or concurrent control group. Acute (occurring during or within 1 hour after contrast agent injection) and delayed (occurring between 1 hour and 7 days after contrast agent injection) AEs were evaluated and categorized (mild, not requiring treatment; moderate, self-limiting AE requiring simple treatment; severe, AE requiring extensive treatment or endangering life). The two-sided Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 895 patients were recruited. Acute AEs were noted significantly (P < .05) more often in the monomeric group (44.8% [133 of 297 patients]) than in the dimeric (23.7% [71 of 300 patients]) or control (9.4% [28 of 298 patients]) groups. Two moderate acute AEs were noted in one patient in each contrast agent group; all other acute AEs were mild. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of delayed AEs between the dimeric and monomeric groups (53.1% [139 of 262 patients] vs 50.8% [131 of 258 patients]). Delayed cutaneous AEs were noted significantly (P < .05) more often in the dimeric group. A total 16 AEs (2.0%) were moderate; no AE was severe.

CONCLUSION

The dimeric contrast agent caused fewer acute AEs than the monomeric contrast agent; however, the dimeric and monomeric agents caused a similar overall number of delayed AEs. Delayed cutaneous symptoms were noted more often with the dimeric contrast agent. Both contrast agents were safe in that no severe AEs and only a few moderate AEs were observed.

Current understanding of contrast media reactions and implications for clinical management

Iodinated contrast media (CM) are an integral part of modern diagnostic medicine. Although these agents are considered to be relatively safe, adverse effects in the form of allergy-like reactions occur in a significant number of exposed patients. These reactions may be divided into immediate and delayed responses. Immediate (within 1 hour of administration) anaphylactic reactions range from urticaria and angioedema to laryngeal oedema, hypotension and even death. Delayed reactions to CM occur from 1 hour to 1 week after administration and usually have mostly cutaneous manifestations. History of prior CM reactions and atopy predispose patients to CM reactions. Despite intense research into the pathogenesis of the immediate anaphylactoid responses, new evidence shows that true IgE type I hypersensitivity mediation occurs only in rare, severe cases. The aetiology appears to be multifactorial in most individuals. There is strong evidence to conclude that type IV hypersensitivity is responsible for the delayed reactions to CM. Although switching to non-ionic agents significantly reduces the incidence of immediate reactions to CM, there is little consensus regarding corticosteroid prophylaxis in high-risk individuals. Skin testing and provocative challenges also provide little security. Therefore, physicians must be better prepared to treat immediate anaphylactoid responses. Preventing delayed CM reactions is best performed with patch and delayed intradermal testing in those with a history of prior reactions, although false-negative results have been reported. Corticosteroids and antihistamines may be required for treatment. Until newer agents are developed that negate these issues, healthcare providers must strive to better understand the risk factors associated with CM reactions, as well as the available prophylactic and treatment options.

A practical guide to diagnose lesser-known immediate and delayed contrast media-induced adverse cutaneous reactions

The terms "immediate" and "delayed" adverse reactions induced by contrast media (CM) refer to the reactions' onset but do not provide substantial information concerning the clinical manifestation, the potential risk factors, the treatment modalities, or prevention. Because a variety of different reactions caused by different pathophysiological mechanisms may arise immediately or be delayed after CM injection, and because these need different management, the aim of the present paper is to present the clinical features and to exactly characterize lesser-known cutaneous reactions. A thorough knowledge of the clinical features, their adequate treatment, and, possibly, the subsequent diagnostic procedure for preventing recurrence after reexposure to CM would improve patient management.

Use of iso-osmolar nonionic dimeric contrast media in multidetector row computed tomography angiography for patients with renal impairment

OBJECTIVES

We wanted to determine the rate of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) caused in patients with renal impairment undergoing multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) angiography with intravenous administration of iso-osmolar dimeric contrast media (iodixanol).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The first consecutive 100 patients referred to CT with a serum creatinine level (SCr) between 1.5 and 6 mg/dL were enrolled in the study. Serum creatinine also was determined on days 3 and 7 after the intravenous administration of 100 mL of iodixanol 270 with 5 mL/s. A CIN was considered if variation of SCr on day 3 was >0.5 mg/dl above baseline.

RESULTS

Nine patients developed a CIN after MDCT angiography; 7 of them recovered completely by day 7, and the remaining 2 showed elevated SCr on day 7 but did not develop renal failure during their hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

MDCT angiography performed in patients with impaired renal function with iodixanol may result in CIN but complete recovery is probable.

Nephrotoxicity of low-osmolality versus iso-osmolality contrast agents: Impact of N-acetylcysteine

BACKGROUND

Recent data support that iodixanol, an iso-osmolality contrast agent, is less nephrotoxic than low-osmolality contrast agents when hydration is the only prophylactic strategy used. We evaluated the nephrotoxicity of iso- and low-osmolality contrast agents with prophylactic administration of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) along with hydration.

METHODS

Two hundred and twenty-five patients with chronic renal insufficiency (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL or an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), referred to our institution for coronary and/or peripheral procedures, were assigned to receive low-osmolality (iobitridol group; N = 115) or iso-osmolality (iodixanol group; N = 110) contrast dye. In all cases prophylactic administration of 0.45% saline intravenously and NAC (1200 mg orally twice daily) was used.

RESULTS

Baseline creatinine levels were similar in the 2 groups [iobitridol group = 1.70 (IQR: 1.54-1.98) mg/dL; iodixanol group = 1.73 (IQR: 1.56-2.00) mg/dL, P = 0.33]. The risk score for contrast nephrotoxicity was 5.0 +/- 1.6 in the iobitridol group versus 5.0 +/- 1.8 in the iodixanol group (P = 0.44). Increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL of the creatinine concentration 48 hours after the procedure occurred in 4/115 patients (3.5%) in the iobitridol group and 3/110 patients (2.7%) in the iodixanol group (P = 1.00; OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.17-3.56). Amount of contrast media administration was similar in the 2 groups (iobitridol group = 167 +/- 90 mL; iodixanol group = 164 +/- 82 mL; P = 0.61).

CONCLUSION

Nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolality and low-osmolality contrast agents was similar when a prophylactic strategy of hydration plus NAC was utilized.

Adverse Reactions of Low Osmolar Non-Ionic and Ionic Contrast Media When Used Together or Separately During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Due to perceived advantages in the use of non-ionic contrast agents for diagnostic angiography and ionic agents for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), patients often receive various combinations of both types of agents.

AIM

To assess potential adverse effects of non-ionic and ionic contrast media when used together or separately during percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 532 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution. Patients were divided into two groups: those that underwent diagnostic angiography and "follow on" PCI; and those that underwent "planned" PCI. The groups were subdivided on the basis of the use of the ionic agent ioxaglate or the non-ionic agent iopromide during PCI. The frequency of allergic reactions and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were noted.

RESULTS

With respect to the "follow on" group, allergic reactions occurred in 9 of 150 patients (6.0%) who received the combination of ioxaglate and iopromide versus 1 of 93 (1.1%) who only received iopromide (p=0.094). There was no difference with respect to MACE [6 (4.0%) ioxaglate and iopromide versus 4 (4.3%) iopromide alone, p=1.00]. In the "planned" group, 7 of 165 patients (4.2%) receiving ioxaglate had an allergic reaction as opposed 0.0% (0 of 124 patients) in the iopromide group (p=0.021). All contrast reactions were mild. The incidence of a MACE was similar in both groups [1 (0.6%) ioxaglate versus 2 (1.6%) iopromide, p=0.579]. The incidence of allergic reactions was similar if ioxaglate was used alone or in combination with iopromide (p=0.478).

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst combining ionic and non-ionic contrast agents in the same procedure was not associated with any more adverse reactions than using an ionic contrast agent alone, the ionic contrast agent ioxaglate was associated with the majority of allergic reactions. With respect to choice of contrast agent, using the non-ionic agent iopromide alone for coronary intervention is associated with the lowest risk of an adverse event.

The no-flow phenomenon during diagnostic coronary angiography

OBJECTIVES

Slow flow of dye in epicardial coronary arteries is not an infrequent finding in patients during routine coronary angiography. The extreme form of this phenomenon, namely, no flow or Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 0-1, is very uncommon with life-threatening consequences. We consider the present report as the first one, to our knowledge, that describes this angiographic entity and how prompt recognition and adequate management prevent certain death in this population.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Retrospective review of the cardiac catheterization laboratory database at our medical center. Out of 5700 cardiac catheterizations performed by the authors during the past 5 years, 10 cases (0.17%) were identified as having no flow or very slow flow during their routine diagnostic coronary angiogram.

CASE ANALYSIS

The no-flow phenomenon occurred during the first coronary injection in the left coronary system. We specifically emphasize that none of these cases was a consequence of inadvertent air injection, vasospasm, or coronary dissection. In 80% of our cases, flow was completely absent (TIMI 0), and in two cases (20%) it was very slow and never filling the distal vessel (TIMI 1). Despite immediate recognition and prompt maneuvers and treatment with intracoronary vasodilator administration, 60% of these patients progressed to full cardiopulmonary arrest with all of them having extended cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and pharmacological treatment. Only one patient required intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support and temporary pacemaker. All patients recovered completely with no clinical consequences. Characteristics of patients with this complication are described, and several possible etiologies are analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Definite conclusions for the reason of the no-flow phenomenon are not possible at present, despite multiple different theories that could explain it. What is important from the clinical standpoint is that, although rare, it is a potentially life-threatening condition during diagnostic coronary angiography that should be recognized and aggressively treated. We consider the present report as the first one, to our knowledge, that describes this angiographic entity, and how prompt recognition and adequate management prevents certain death in this population.