Basharat Noor F, Ranganathan Karthik, Kang Paul T, Gridley Daniel G, Roh Albert T
Department of Radiology, Valleywise Health Medical Center, 2601 E Roosevelt St, Phoenix, AZ 85008.
University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Jan;218(1):174-179. doi: 10.2214/AJR.21.26256. Epub 2021 Jul 28.
Extrinsic warming of iodinated CT contrast media to body temperature reduces viscosity and injection pressures. However, studies examining the effect of extrinsic warming on clinical adverse events are limited in number and provide conflicting results. Therefore, consensus practice recommendations have been sparse. The purpose of this study is to compare rates of extravasation, allergic and allergiclike reactions, and physiologic reactions between iohexol 350 mg I/mL warmed to body temperature (37°C) versus this agent maintained at room temperature. This retrospective study compared adult patients who received CT examinations using IV iohexol 350 that had either been warmed to body temperature or maintained at room temperature. At our institution, contrast media had historically been warmed to body temperature before a protocol change unrelated to this investigation. Information on the patient and CT examination was extracted from the electronic medical record. Adverse events, including extravasations, allergic and allergiclike reactions, and physiologic reactions, were compared between groups. A total of 3939 patients received contrast media warmed to body temperature before the protocol change; 3933 patients received contrast media at room temperature after the protocol change. The body temperature group experienced 11 (0.28%; 95% CI, 0.14-0.50%) adverse events, all extravasations; the allergic and allergic-like reaction rate was 0.00% (97.5% CI, 0.00-0.09%). The room temperature group experienced 17 (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.25-0.69%) adverse events: 13 (0.33%; 95% CI, 0.17-0.56%) extravasations and four (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26%) allergic and allergiclike reactions. No physiologic reaction occurred in either group. The two groups were not different in terms of overall reaction rate ( = .19), extravasation rate ( = .69), allergic and allergiclike reaction rate ( = .06), or physiologic reaction rate ( > .99). Logistic regression adjusting for patient and CT characteristics (age, sex, conventional CT vs CTA, contrast media volume, injection location) showed no significant association of patient group and adverse reaction rate (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.68-7.00). Multivariable regression modeling showed an excess of 0.27 adverse events per 100 patients within the room temperature group, which is below a 0.6% noninferiority margin. The data suggest that maintaining iohexol 350 at room temperature is noninferior to warming the agent to body temperature before injection. The resources involved to prewarm iohexol 350 before injection may not be warranted.
将碘化CT造影剂外部加热至体温可降低其黏度和注射压力。然而,研究外部加热对临床不良事件影响的研究数量有限且结果相互矛盾。因此,达成共识的实践建议很少。本研究的目的是比较加热至体温(37°C)的碘海醇350 mg I/mL与室温保存的该制剂之间的外渗率、过敏及类过敏反应率和生理反应率。这项回顾性研究比较了接受静脉注射碘海醇350进行CT检查的成年患者,这些造影剂要么被加热至体温,要么保持在室温。在我们机构,在一项与本研究无关的方案变更之前,造影剂一直被加热至体温。从电子病历中提取患者和CT检查的信息。比较两组之间的不良事件,包括外渗、过敏及类过敏反应和生理反应。在方案变更前,共有3939例患者接受了加热至体温的造影剂;方案变更后,3933例患者接受了室温下的造影剂。体温组发生了11例(0.28%;95%CI,0.14 - 0.50%)不良事件,均为外渗;过敏及类过敏反应率为0.00%(97.5%CI,0.00 - 0.09%)。室温组发生了17例(0.43%;95%CI,0.25 - 0.69%)不良事件:13例(0.33%;95%CI,0.17 - 0.56%)外渗和4例(0.10%;95%CI,0.03 - 0.26%)过敏及类过敏反应。两组均未发生生理反应。两组在总体反应率( = 0.19)、外渗率( = 0.69)、过敏及类过敏反应率( = 0.06)或生理反应率( > 0.99)方面无差异。对患者和CT特征(年龄、性别、传统CT与CTA、造影剂体积、注射部位)进行调整的逻辑回归显示,患者组与不良反应率之间无显著关联(比值比,2.19;95%CI,0.68 - 7.00)。多变量回归模型显示,室温组每100例患者额外发生0.27例不良事件,低于0.6%的非劣效性界值。数据表明,将碘海醇350保存在室温下并不劣于注射前将其加热至体温。注射前预热碘海醇350所涉及的资源可能没有必要。