McDonald Jennifer S, Larson Nicholas B, Kolbe Amy B, Hunt Christopher H, Schmitz John J, Maddox Daniel E, Hartman Robert P, Kallmes David F, McDonald Robert J
From the Department of Radiology (J.S.M., A.B.K., C.H.H., J.J.S., R.P.H., D.F.K., R.J.M.), Department of Quantitative Health Sciences (N.B.L.), Division of Allergic Diseases (D.E.M.), and Department of Neurosurgery (D.F.K.), Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
Radiology. 2021 Oct;301(1):133-140. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021210490. Epub 2021 Aug 3.
Background It is unclear whether steroid premedication is an effective means of preventing repeat allergic-like reactions in high-risk patients with a previous allergic-like reaction to iodinated contrast material (ICM). Purpose To compare the effectiveness of ICM substitution (ie, using iohexol in a patient with a previous iopromide reaction) with 12- and 2-hour steroid premedication for preventing repeat acute allergic-like reactions in high-risk patients. Materials and Methods This retrospective study identified all high-risk (ie, having a previous allergic-like reaction) adult and pediatric patients who underwent a contrast-enhanced CT examination at the institution from June 1, 2009, to May 9, 2017. Prophylactic treatments and repeat reactions were identified using chart review. The effectiveness of prophylactic treatments on repeat reaction rates was examined with multivariable regression models that used generalized estimating equations. Results A total of 1973 high-risk patients who underwent 4360 subsequent ICM-enhanced CT examinations were included. Of the 4360 examinations, a total of 280 allergic-like reactions occurred (6%) in 224 of the 1973 patients (11% of patients), with only 19 of 280 reactions (7%) that were more severe than the previous reaction being demonstrated. After adjustment, patients who received a different ICM with and without steroid premedication had a significantly lower rate of repeat reactions than did patients who received steroid premedication and the same ICM (same ICM and steroid premedication: 80 of 423 examinations [19%]; different ICM and no steroid premedication: 10 of 322 examinations [3%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.14 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.33]; < .001; different ICM and steroid premedication: five of 166 patients [3%]; OR, 0.12 [95% CI: 0.04, 0.36]; < .001). When examining the first scan only, patients who received the same ICM had a similar risk of repeat reactions regardless of whether they received steroid premedication (steroid premedication: 44 of 172 patients [26%] vs no premedication: 73 of 298 patients [25%]; OR, 1.00 [95% CI: 0.64, 1.57]; = .99). Conclusion In this cohort, using an iodinated contrast material (ICM) substitution was more effective for preventing repeat allergic-like reactions than using steroid premedication and the same ICM that caused the previous reaction. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Davenport and Weinstein in this issue.
对于既往对碘化造影剂(ICM)有过敏样反应的高危患者,类固醇预处理是否是预防重复过敏样反应的有效方法尚不清楚。目的:比较ICM替代(即既往对碘普罗胺有反应的患者使用碘海醇)与12小时和2小时类固醇预处理在预防高危患者重复急性过敏样反应方面的有效性。材料与方法:这项回顾性研究纳入了2009年6月1日至2017年5月9日在该机构接受增强CT检查的所有高危(即既往有过敏样反应)成人和儿童患者。通过查阅病历确定预防性治疗和重复反应情况。使用广义估计方程的多变量回归模型检验预防性治疗对重复反应率的有效性。结果:共纳入1973例高危患者,他们随后接受了4360次ICM增强CT检查。在4360次检查中,1973例患者中的224例(占患者的11%)共发生280次过敏样反应(6%),其中280次反应中只有19次(7%)比既往反应更严重。调整后,接受不同ICM且有或无类固醇预处理的患者重复反应率显著低于接受类固醇预处理且使用相同ICM的患者(相同ICM和类固醇预处理:423次检查中的80次[19%];不同ICM且无类固醇预处理:322次检查中的10次[3%];优势比[OR],0.14[95%CI:0.06,0.33];P<.001;不同ICM和类固醇预处理:166例患者中的5例[3%];OR,0.12[95%CI:0.04,0.36];P<.001)。仅检查首次扫描时,接受相同ICM的患者无论是否接受类固醇预处理,重复反应风险相似(类固醇预处理:172例患者中的44例[26%] vs未预处理:298例患者中的73例[25%];OR,1.00[95%CI:0.64,1.57];P =.99)。结论:在该队列中,使用碘化造影剂(ICM)替代比使用类固醇预处理和导致既往反应的相同ICM更有效地预防重复过敏样反应。©RSNA,2021 另见本期达文波特和温斯坦的社论。