The prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media: a systematic review

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Emergency Management of Anaphylaxis (2020)

Background: For anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, the incidence rate was presented to have increased from the beginning of the 21st century. Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of anaphylaxis are public health concerns. Objective: This guideline aimed to provide high-quality and evidence-based recommendations for the emergency management of anaphylaxis. Method: The panel of health professionals from fifteen medical areas selected twenty-five clinical questions and formulated the recommendations with the supervision of four methodologists. We collected evidence by conducting systematic literature retrieval and using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: This guideline made twenty-five recommendations that covered the diagnosis, preparation, emergency treatment, and post-emergency management of anaphylaxis. We recommended the use of a set of adapted diagnostic criteria from the American National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN), and developed a severity grading system that classified anaphylaxis into four grades. We recommended epinephrine as the first-line treatment, with specific doses and routes of administration for different severity of anaphylaxis or different conditions. Proper dosage is critical in the administration of epinephrine, and the monitor is important in the IV administration. Though there was only very low or low-quality evidence supported the use of glucocorticoids and H1 antagonists, we still weakly recommended them as second-line medications. We could not make a well-directed recommendation regarding premedication for preventing anaphylaxis since it is difficult to weigh the concerns and potential effects. Conclusion: For the emergency management of anaphylaxis we conclude that: • NIAID/FAAN diagnostic criteria and the four-tier grading system should be used for the diagnosis • Prompt and proper administration of epinephrine is critical.

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.

Acute Adverse Reactions to Nonionic Iodinated Contrast Media: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to meta-analytically compare the incidence of acute adverse reactions (AARs) to nonionic iodinated contrast media (ICM) according to the type of ICM in patients who underwent radiologic examinations with administration of ICM via intravascular route.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search identified studies evaluating the incidence of AARs to 7 nonionic ICM (iobitridol, iohexol, iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, ioversol, and iodixanol) with extractable outcomes. These outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model, and the effect of ICM type on the incidence of overall and severe AARs was evaluated using meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty studies with 1,360,488 exposures to ICM were included. The pooled incidences of overall and severe AARs to nonionic ICM were 1.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81%-1.30%; I = 0.99) and 0.0141% (95% CI, 0.0108%-0.0183%; I = 0.56), respectively. Iomeprol had the highest overall AAR incidence (1.74%; 95% CI, 0.79%-3.76%; I = 0.99), followed by iohexol (1.21%; 95% CI, 0.67%-2.17%; I = 0.99), iopamidol (1.10%; 95% CI, 0.60%-2.03%; I = 0.99), ioversol (0.88%; 95% CI, 0.43%-1.83%; I = 0.96), iodixanol (0.85%; 95% CI, 0.36%-1.95%; I = 0.99), iopromide (0.82%; 95% CI, 0.43%-1.55%; I = 0.99), and iobitridol (0.77%; 95% CI, 0.36%-1.62%; I = 0.99). Multivariable meta-regression analysis revealed that study design (P = 0.0014) and premedication (P = 0.0230) were statistically significant determinants affecting the incidence of overall AARs. Iodinated contrast media type did not affect the incidence of overall and severe AARs (P = 0.1453 and 0.4265, each).

CONCLUSIONS

The varying pooled incidences of overall and severe AARs to specific types of nonionic ICM do not remain as significant after adjusting confounders. Our results may support nonrestriction of certain types of nonionic ICM in the context of AAR avoidance.

Pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions to prevent hypersensitivity reactions of non-ionic iodinated contrast media: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Iodinated contrast media are commonly used in medical imaging and can cause hypersensitivity reactions, including rare but severe life-threatening reactions. Although several prophylactic approaches have been proposed for severe reactions, their effects remain unclear. Therefore, we aim to review systematically the preventive effects of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions and predictors of acute, hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1 January 1990 through 31 December 2019 and will examine the bibliographies of eligible studies, pertinent review articles and clinical practice guidelines. We will include prospective and retrospective studies of any design that evaluated the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological preventive interventions for adverse reactions of non-ionic iodinated contrast media. Two assessors will independently extract the characteristics of the study and intervention and the quantitative results. Two independent reviewers will assess the risk of bias using standard design-specific validity assessment tools. The primary outcome will be reduction in acute contrast media-induced hypersensitivity reactions. The secondary outcomes will include characteristics associated with the development of contrast media-induced acute hypersensitivity reactions, and adverse events associated with specific preventive interventions. Unique premedication regimens (eg, dose, drug and duration) and non-pharmacological strategies will be analysed separately. Average-risk and high-risk patients will be considered separately. A meta-analysis will be performed if appropriate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not applicable, as this will be a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019134003.

Pharmacology of Peripheral Arterial Disease in the Angio Suite: What Every Interventionalist Should Know

Safe and effective treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and critical limb ischemia can be routinely performed in the angiography suite. A systematic understanding of the medications commonly used during these procedures is essential. This review discusses the traditional roles of the medications used in PAD procedures, the existing evidence basis for those roles, potential alternatives, and evolving techniques. Developing a familiarity with these medications can help improve outcomes and safety for the patients being treated.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: The Plastic Surgery Paradigm Shift

BACKGROUND

With a focus on providing high quality care and reducing facility based expenses there has been an evolution in perioperative care by way of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). ERAS allows for a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach to perioperative care which not only expedites recovery but maximizes patient outcomes. This paradigm shift has been generally accepted by most surgical specialties, including plastic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of ERAS on outcomes in cosmetic plastic surgery.

METHODS

A prospective study consisting of phone call questionnaires was designed where patients from two senior plastic surgeons (N.H.R. and J.D.F.) were followed. The treatment group (n = 10) followed an ERAS protocol while the control group (n = 12) followed the traditional recovery after surgery which included narcotic usage. Patients were contacted on postoperative days (POD) 0 through 7+ and surveyed about a number of outcomes measures.

RESULTS

The ERAS group demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative pain on POD 0, 1, 2, and 3 (all P < 0.01). There was also statistically less nausea/vomiting, fatigue/drowsiness, constipation, and hindrance on ambulation compared to the control group (all P < 0.05). Significance was achieved for reduction in fatigue/drowsiness on POD 0 and 1 (P < 0.01), as well as ability to ambulate on POD 0 and 3 (P = 0.044). Lastly, opioid use (P < 0.001) and constipation (P = 0.003) were decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocols have demonstrated their importance within multiple surgical fields, including cosmetic plastic surgery. The utility lies in the ability to expedite patient's recovery while still providing quality care. This study showed a reduction in postoperative complaints by avoiding narcotics without an increase in complications. Our findings signify the importance of ERAS protocols within cosmetic plastic surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4

Anaphylactic Shock Following Nonionic Contrast Medium during Caudal Epidural Injection

Caudal epidural injection is a common intervention in patients with low back pain and sciatica. Even though the complications of fluoroscopically directed epidural injections are less frequent than in blind epidural injections, complications due to contrast media can occur. We report a case of anaphylactic shock immediately after injection of an intravenous nonionic contrast medium (iohexol) during the caudal epidural injection for low back pain and sciatica in a patient without a previous allergic history to ionic contrast media (ioxitalamate). Five minutes after the dye was injected, the patient began to experience dizziness, and the systolic blood pressure dropped to 60 mmHg. Subsequently, the patient exhibited a mild drowsy mental state. About 30 minutes after the subcutaneous injection of 0.2 mg epinephrine, the systolic blood pressure increased to 90 mmHg. The patient recovered without any sequela. Life-threatening complications after injection of intravenous contrast medium require immediate treatment.

Safety and tolerability of iopromide intravascular use: a pooled analysis of three non-interventional studies in 132,012 patients

BACKGROUND

Determining the safety of contrast agents is challenging. In the absence of large controlled clinical trials, non-interventional (post-marketing surveillance) studies provide an opportunity to clearly investigate the safety profile of contrast agents.

PURPOSE

To assess the safety profile of iopromide in contrast-enhanced X-ray in clinical practice, using pooled data from three non-interventional studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All studies were international, multicenter, non-interventional studies examining iopromide tolerability in clinical practice. Patients received iopromide (iodine concentrations of 300 mg/mL or 370 mg/mL) via intravenous or intra-arterial administration according to the diagnostic indication and in compliance with the local package insert.

RESULTS

In total, 132,012 patients (37 countries, >1600 centers) were included. Overall, 3823 patients (2.49%) reported an adverse drug reaction (ADR) and 1983 patients (1.50%) reported an ADR without tolerance indicators (injection site warmth, feeling hot or injection site pain, of mild intensity only). This is a similar rate to other low osmolar contrast media. In most patients, ADRs were mild (n = 2632; 1.99% of all patients) and did not require any action (n = 2799; 2.12% of all patients). ADRs were more common among women (n = 1680 [2.8%]) than men (n = 1586 [2.2%]) and among younger patients (<18 years: n = 98 [3.2%]) than older patients (18-49 years: n = 1261 [3.5%]; 50-69 years: n = 1224 [2.2%]; ≥70 years: n = 362 [1.5%]). The most common ADRs were injection site warmth/feeling hot, nausea/vomiting, and dysguesia. Forty-five serious ADRs were reported in 19 patients. ADRs were more common in at-risk patients (5.00%) than in the overall population.

CONCLUSION

This pooled analysis confirms the well-established good safety profile of iopromide in clinical practice in Asian and European countries and the USA.

Current concepts of immunology and diagnosis in amniotic fluid embolism

Amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity in developed countries. Current thinking about pathophysiology has shifted away from embolism toward a maternal immune response to the fetus. Two immunologic mechanisms have been studied to date. Anaphylaxis appears to be doubtful while the available evidence supports a role for complement activation. With the mechanism remaining to be elucidated, AFE remains a clinical diagnosis. It is diagnosed based on one or more of four key signs/symptoms: cardiovascular collapse, respiratory distress, coagulopathy, and/or coma/seizures. The only laboratory test that reliably supports the diagnosis is the finding of fetal material in the maternal pulmonary circulation at autopsy. Perhaps the most compelling mystery surrounding AFE is not why one in 20,000 parturients are afflicted, but rather how the vast majority of women can tolerate the foreign antigenic presence of their fetus both within their uterus and circulation?

Safety and tolerability of iobitridol in general and in patients with risk factors: results in more than 160,000 patients

OBJECTIVE

To review the safety, the tolerability and the diagnostic effectiveness of iobitridol under daily practice conditions in the general population and at-risk patients in a post-marketing surveillance study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 160,639 patients (55.1% male, 43.6% female, mean age 58.6 years) were analysed in 555 centers. Patients underwent X-ray examinations using iobitridol (Xenetix®, Guerbet, Sulzbach, Germany) as IV contrast medium (mean volume 85.6 ml). 21.8% of all patients had at least one risk factor (e.g., renal impairment), 7.3% were at-risk patients with allergies or who had previously reacted to contrast medium. Antiallergic pretreatment before contrast medium administration was given in 1144 patients (0.7%). Adverse events were documented and the image quality was assessed.

RESULTS

A diagnosis was possible in 99.5% of all cases. The image quality was rated good or excellent in 92.2%. The adverse event rate (e.g., nausea, urticaria) observed was 0.6% in all patients, 1.6% in patients with allergies and 6.0% in patients with a previous reaction to contrast medium. Adverse events occurred more often in women than in men (p<0.001). Pretreatment did not decrease the rate of adverse events. The rate of adverse events was not increased in higher doses of iobitridol, even if administered to high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Iobitridol was shown to be a safe and well-tolerated contrast medium with a low incidence of adverse events in patients with and without risk factors resulting in a good or excellent image quality in most patients.

Predictors for contrast media-induced nephropathy and long-term survival: prospectively assessed data from the randomized controlled Dialysis-Versus-Diuresis (DVD) trial

BACKGROUND

Among the numerous studies concerning contrast media-induced nephropathy (CIN), there was no prospective trial that provided data on the long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively assess predictors of CIN and long-term outcomes of affected patients.

METHODS

Four hundred twelve consecutive patients with serum creatinine levels of 115 micromol/L to 309 micromol/L (1.3 mg/dL to 3.5 mg/dL) undergoing elective coronary angiography were included. Patients were randomly assigned to periprocedural hydration alone, hydration plus one-time hemodialysis or hydration plus N-acetylcysteine.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression identified the following as predictors of CIN within 72 h (equivalent to an increase in creatinine 44.2 micromol/L [0.5 mg/dL] or more) : prophylactic postprocedural hemodialysis (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.07 to 7.69), use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (OR 6.16, 95% CI 2.01 to 18.93), baseline glomerular filtration rate (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) and the amount of contrast media given (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01). With regard to long-term outcome (mean follow-up 649 days), multivariate Cox regression models found elevated creatinine levels at 30 days (hazard rate ratio [HRR] 5.48, 95% CI 2.85 to 10.53), but not CIN within 72 h (HRR 1.12, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02), to be associated with increased mortality. In addition, independent predictors for death during follow-up included left ventricular ejection fraction lower than 35% (HRR 4.01, 95% CI 2.22 to 7.26), serum phosphate (HRR 1.64, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.43) and hemoglobin (HRR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96).

CONCLUSION

From the present prospective trial, performance of postprocedural hemodialysis, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, reduced baseline glomerular filtration rate and amount of contrast media were independent predictors of CIN within 72 h after catheterization. Assessing renal function after 30 days, rather than within 72 h, seemed to be more predictive for patients' long-term survival.

Emergency pretreatment for contrast allergy before direct percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Patients with previous adverse contrast reactions occasionally present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Whether they can undergo catheterization safely using current contrast and medications is unknown. We reviewed catheterization laboratory records of all 501 patients (January 2005 to December 2006) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent emergency coronary angiography. Six patients (1.2%) reported a previous contrast reaction including rash, acute bronchospasm, or anaphylaxis. All received a combination of intravenous steroids and H1 and H2 blockers in the emergency department or catheterization laboratory before catheterization. None of these had complications or evidence of allergy in any patient. In conclusion, some patients with previous contrast reaction may undergo emergency catheterization without adverse consequences, although the safety of this approach has not been proved.

Adverse drug reactions in patients with cardiovascular disease

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur frequently in modern medical practice, increasing morbidity and mortality and inflating the cost of care. Patients with cardiovascular disease are particularly vulnerable to ADRs due to their advanced age, polypharmacy, and the influence of heart disease on drug metabolism. The ADR potential for a particular cardiovascular drug varies with the individual, the disease being treated, and the extent of exposure to other drugs. Knowledge of this complex interplay between patient, drug, and disease is a critical component of safe and effective cardiovascular disease management. The majority of significant ADRs involving cardiovascular drugs are predictable and therefore preventable. Better patient education, avoidance of polypharmacy, and clear communication between physicians, pharmacists, and patients, particularly during the transition between the inpatient to outpatient settings, can substantially reduce ADR risk.