Volume : 09, Issue : 10, October – 2022

Title:

69.AN OVERVIEW OF CONTRAST AGENT IN DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, ADVERSE REACTION AND AVOIDING ERROR
‬

Authors :

Ahmad Abdullah Alqahtani, Faisal Fahad Alotaibi, Khalid Sultan Aldajani, Atef Obidallah Alharbi, Bandar Sunaitan Almutairi, Rashid Soud Almutiri, Farhan Alhari Alanazi, Fahad Reja Basheer Alharbi

Abstract :

Contrast media agents have been used to increase picture quality in MRI exams for decades, and some of the agents have a great overall safety record. A search was conducted in electronic sources, such as PubMed and Embase, for publications published up to the start of 2022 that discussed contrast media agents used in radiograph situations. The majority of adverse reactions to contrast media are regarded to be idiosyncratic or pseudoallergic in nature. They are unexpected and not dose-dependent, and they may entail the release of histamine as well as other biological mediators such serotonin, prostaglandins, bradykinin, leukotrienes, adenosine, and endothelin. Because antibodies to contrast media could not be reliably shown, there is no definitive proof that these adverse reactions to contrast media are allergic.

Cite This Article:

References:

1. Spampinato MV, Abid A, Matheus MG. Current Radiographic Iodinated Contrast Agents. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017 Nov;25(4):697-704.
2. Czeyda-Pommersheim F, Martin DR, Costello JR, Kalb B. Contrast Agents for MR Imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017 Nov;25(4):705-711.
3. Hunt D, Romero J. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017 Nov;25(4):725-736.
4. Pomara C, Pascale N, Maglietta F, Neri M, Riezzo I, Turillazzi E. Use of contrast media in diagnostic imaging: medico-legal considerations. Radiol Med. 2015 Sep;120(9):802-9.
5. Webb JAW, Stacul F, Thomsen HS, et al. Late adverse reactions to intravascular iodinated contrast media. Eur Radiol 2003;13:181-4.
6. American College of Radiology Manual on Contrast Media, version 5.0. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2004.
7. Bohm I, Heverhagen JT, Klose KJ (2012) Classification of acute and delayed contrast media-induced reactions: proposal of a three-step system. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 7, 537–541.
8. Bleicher AG, Kanal E (2008) Assessment of adverse reaction rates to a newly approved MRI contrast agent: review of 23,553 administrations of gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191: W307–W311.
9. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, Ramalho M et al (2016) Gadoliniumbased contrast agent accumulation and toxicity: an update. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:1192–1198.
10. Grobner T (2006) Gadolinium — a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:1104–1108.
11. Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K et al (2006) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 17:2359–2362.
12. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H et al (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1- weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270: 834–841.
13. Errante Y, Cirimele V, Mallio CA et al (2014) Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function, suggesting dechelation. Investig Radiol 49:685– 690.
14. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF et al (2015) Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 275:772–782.
15. Pomara C, Pascale N, Maglietta F, Neri M, Riezzo I, Turillazzi E. Use of contrast media in diagnostic imaging: medico-legal considerations. Radiol Med. 2015 Sep;120(9):802-9.
16. Bush WH, Swanson DP. Acute reactions to intravascular contrast media: types, risk factors, recognition, and specific treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157(6):1153–61.
17. Media ACoDaC. ACR manual on contrast media: version 10.2; ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media, American College of Radiology, 2016.
18. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, et al. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990;175(3):621–8.
19. Trcka J, Schmidt C, Seitz CS, et al. Anaphylaxis to iodinated contrast material: nonallergic hypersensitivity or IgE-mediated allergy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(3):666–70.
20. Costello JR, Kalb B, Martin DR. Incidence and risk factors for gadolinium-based contrast agent immediate reactions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 25(6):257–63.
21. Gohan RH, Dunnick NR. Intravascular contrast media: adverse reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;149(4):665–70.
22. Almen T. The etiology of contrast medium reactions. Invest Radiol 1994;29(Suppl 1):S37–45.
23. chour G, Varache N, Szapiro N, et al. Noncardiogenic pulmonary edema resulting from intravascular administration of contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;157(2):255–6.
24. Lambert E, Lambert GW. Sympathetic dysfunction in vasovagal syncope and the postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Front Physiol 2014;5:280.
25. T. Kanda, et al., High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material, Radiology 270 (3) (2014) 834–841.
26. N. Karabulut, Gadolinium deposition in the brain: another concern regarding gadolinium-based contrast agents, Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 21 (4) (2015) 269–270.
27. R.J. McDonald, et al., Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging, Radiology 275 (3) (2015) 772–782.
28. Y. Errante, et al., Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function: suggesting dechelation, Invest. Radiol. 49 (10) (2014) 685–690.
29. E. Kanal, M.F. Tweedle, Residual or retained gadolinium: practical implications for radiologists and our patients, Radiology 275 (3) (2015) 630–634.\
30. J. Kirchner, et al., Optimized enhancement in helical CT: experiences with a real-time bolus tracking system in 628 patients, Clin. Radiol. 55 (5) (2000) 368–373.
31. Jae Young Jang, Moon Young Kim, Soung Won Jeong, Tae Yeob Kim, Seung Up Kim, Sae Hwan Lee, Ki Tae Suk, Soo Young Park, Hyun Young Woo, Sang Gyune Kim, Jeong Heo, Soon Koo Baik, Hong Soo Kim, Won Young Tak, Current consensus and guidelines of contrast enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions, Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 19 (2013) 1–16.
32. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H et al (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1- weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270: 834–841