Inherent clinical properties of non-immediate hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media

CAR/CSACI Practice Guidance for Contrast Media Hypersensitivity

Contrast media, including iodinated contrast media and gadolinium-based contrast agents, are commonly administered pharmaceuticals with excellent safety profiles. However, a minority of the population may experience a hypersensitivity reaction following intravenous administration. Hypersensitivity reactions can be immediate or delayed, and range from mild, such as urticaria, to severe, including anaphylaxis. There is emerging evidence that longstanding pretreatment protocols, such as diphenhydramine and corticosteroids, are ineffective and have the potential for side effects and other harms. Moreover, the evidence for efficacy on which this practice is based is weak and outdated. A joint collaborative working group of representatives from the Canadian Association of Radiologists and the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology was assembled to inform medical professionals and hospital policies regarding hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media. The objectives of the working group were to provide an overview of the epidemiology, physiology, risk factors, and types of hypersensitivity reactions; to synthesize the evidence for pretreatment strategies that minimize the risk of a breakthrough reaction for both iodinated contrast media and gadolinium-based contrast agents; to review the allergy investigations used to evaluate patients with a history of severe hypersensitivity reaction; and to provide an overview of existing guidelines. Following appraisal of the evidence, the working group established recommendations based on consensus in this practice guidance.

Intradermal testing of iodinated contrast media: Should we test up to pure or with diluted compounds only?

BACKGROUND

Intradermal testing (IDT) with iodinated contrast media (ICMs) is an established diagnostic tool in patients with ICM hypersensitivity. Currently, it is unclear which test concentration is the more useful one, up to pure or up to 1:10 diluted ICMs.

METHODS

We searched the literature database PubMed for eligible papers dealing with ICM allergy and their IDT results. We analyzed the data presented by the papers and compared the pooled groups tested with diluted and undiluted ICMs.

RESULTS

We identified 29 eligible original papers, and extracted data of 1137 patients that formed the study population. Although in the cohort tested with diluted ICMs the number of tested ICMs was greater, the percentage of positive tests was significantly less (9.0% vs. 24.7%; P < 0.0001; OR 0.30 [0.26-0.34]). The frequency of positive tested culprit ICMs was also lesser in the group tested with diluted ICMs (31.0% vs. 72.5%; P < 0.0001; OR 0.17 [0.12-0.23]). The number of drug provocation tests (DPTs) was greater in patients with diluted IDTs (374 vs. 89; P < 0.0001; OR 2.54 [1.93-3.36]). We detected an increased sensitivity in patients with undiluted tests (0.774 vs. 0.282) and a nearly identical specificity in both groups (1 vs. 0.983).

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, we show that IDT up to pure ICM concentrations is superior to using diluted ICMs only. Possibly, we can reduce the number of DPTs when performing IDTs with pure ICMs. In the undiluted group, there were no hints for skin irritations or unspecific test reactions.

A Case of Severe Lethal Allergic Reaction Caused by Iodixanol After Digital Subtraction Angiography

BACKGROUND

Severe lethal allergic reactions triggered by iodixanol following digital subtraction angiography (DSA) are rare. The majority of skin reactions associated with iodixanol were mild, and the prognosis was favorable. Moreover, a case of serious skin adverse events caused by iodixanol has been documented.

METHODS

A 61-year-old woman underwent surgery for a cerebral hemorrhage in another hospital. Upon the surgery, the patient's state of impaired consciousness did not show any improvement. Head computed tomography angiography on admission: right middle cerebral artery M1 segment enlargement, left posterior cerebral artery P2 stenosis. Following undergoing DSA with iodixanol, the patient experienced severe and fatal drug eruptions, which represents a serious and uncommon complication associated with iodixanol.

RESULTS

This paper describes the experience in the treatment and nursing of severe allergic reactions. Despite the fact that the patient was discharged automatically and eventually died, there are valuable lessons to be learned from this case that can inform and guide future clinical practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Iodixanol adverse reactions were rare, and severe fatal adverse reactions were seldom reported. Consequently, the authors conclude that the potential adverse reaction risk of iodixanol contrast agent should be taken into consideration in future endeavors, and the skin and allergy of patients should be monitored following DSA. In an allergy, prompt and proactive treatment is essential to prevent worsening and dissemination.

Case Report: A Rare Case of Iodixanol-Induced Anaphylactic Shock in Cerebral Angiography

Background

Adverse reactions induced by isoosmolar contrast medium (iodixanol) are mostly mild, with rashes and headaches being the most common. Although anaphylactic shock has been reported, no related incidents have been documented on cerebral angiography.

Objective

This article reports a serious case of anaphylactic shock possibly induced by iodixanol and provides an overview of the case report.

Case Summary

A 65-year-old female with persistent headaches for nearly six months and CTA examination revealed multiple intracranial aneurysms. After two treatments, she returned to the hospital for aneurysm of reexamination a month ago. Following a preoperative assessment, cerebral angiography was performed. Three minutes after the procedure, the patient experienced dizziness, increased heart rate, followed by hypotension (BP 90/43 mm Hg), a sudden drop-in heart rate (HR 68 bpm), and a drop in SpO2 to 92%. Intravenous dexamethasone for anti-allergic were administered immediately, along with therapy through oxygen-inhalation. However, the patient then developed limb convulsions, unresponsiveness, and was urgently given diazepam for sedation and sputum aspiration to maintain airway patency. Blood pressure decrease to 53/29 mm Hg, and SpO2 readings were unavailable. Intravenous dopamine to elevates blood pressure, and assists breathing by intubating in the endotracheal. After 3 minutes, as the blood pressure remained undetectable, intermittent intravenous epinephrine 1mg was administered to raise the blood pressure, gradually restoring it to 126/90 mm Hg, and SpO2 increased to 95%. The patient was diagnosed with iodixanol-induced anaphylactic shock and urgently transferred to the NICU for monitoring and treatment. The patient died despite immediate treatment.

Conclusion

A 65-year-old female developed serious anaphylactic shock during cerebral angiography after receiving iodixanol. Although iodixanol is considered one of the safest iodinated contrast mediums (ICM), clinicians should be aware of its the potential for serious hypersensitivity reactions that can lead to fatal and life-threatening events.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media

At present, iodinated contrast media (ICM) are mostly non-ionic, have low osmolality, and are safe. Even if adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur, most are chemo-toxic symptoms and require only observation or H1 antihistamines. However, rare, unpredictable, and even life-threatening hypersensitivity can still occur. The aim of this review is to summarize the issues that all relevant staff need to know about and be able to respond to. The most significant risk factor for ICM hypersensitivity is a history of ICM hypersensitivity. For high-risk populations, we must cautiously weigh the advantages and disadvantages of premedication and be aware that breakthrough reactions may still occur. The best policy for patients with a history of severe ICM hypersensitivity is to avoid the same ICM. If ICM are inevitable, skin tests, in vitro tests, and drug provocation tests may help to find a feasible alternative that is safer. The severity of the hypersensitivity is correlated with the positivity rate of these tests, so there is no need for further investigations for patients with only mild reactions. We should also keep in mind that even excipients in ICM may induce hypersensitivity. Detailed, standardized documentation is essential for correct diagnosis and the prevention of future occurrence.