Halpern J D, Hopper K D, Arredondo M G, Trautlein J J
College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA 17033, USA.
Radiology. 1996 May;199(2):359-62. doi: 10.1148/radiology.199.2.8668778.
To determine which aspects of patient allergies allergists and immunologists would recommend for the selective use of nonionic contrast material.
A survey about allergy and the selective use of nonionic contrast material was sent to 1,017 allergists and immunologists.
Of 287 respondents, 262 believed that a non-contrast material-related allergy alone was not an indication for use of nonionic contrast material. Most (n=219) believed that a previous serious or life-threatening reaction was the best indication and that a minor reaction was not an indication. Most respondents believed that patients with any previous reaction to contrast material should receive nonionic contrast material, steroids and then nonionic contrast material, or no contrast material at all.
Use of nonionic contrast material in patients with previous non-contrast material-related allergic reactions should be limited to patients with previous serious or life-threatening reactions.
确定过敏症专科医生和免疫学家会推荐将哪些患者过敏方面用于非离子型造影剂的选择性使用。
向1017名过敏症专科医生和免疫学家发送了一份关于过敏及非离子型造影剂选择性使用的调查问卷。
在287名受访者中，262人认为仅与造影剂无关的过敏并非使用非离子型造影剂的指征。大多数人（n = 219）认为既往严重或危及生命的反应是最佳指征，而轻微反应则不是指征。大多数受访者认为，既往对造影剂有任何反应的患者应接受非离子型造影剂、类固醇，然后再使用非离子型造影剂，或者根本不使用造影剂。
既往有与造影剂无关的过敏反应的患者使用非离子型造影剂应仅限于既往有严重或危及生命反应的患者。
