How accurate is the label “allergic to iodinated contrast agents”?

Background Iodinated contrast agents (ICAs) are crucial to the use of many imaging studies. Reported allergies to ICAs in the medical record can interfere with optimal diagnostic imaging workups. Purpose To investigate the accuracy with which the label “allergic to ICAs” is applied. Material and Met...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta radiologica (1987) 2016-01, Vol.57 (1), p.47-50
Hauptverfasser: Mammarappallil, Joseph G, Hiatt, Kevin D, Vincent, William, Bettmann, Michael A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 50
container_issue 1
container_start_page 47
container_title Acta radiologica (1987)
container_volume 57
creator Mammarappallil, Joseph G
Hiatt, Kevin D
Vincent, William
Bettmann, Michael A
description Background Iodinated contrast agents (ICAs) are crucial to the use of many imaging studies. Reported allergies to ICAs in the medical record can interfere with optimal diagnostic imaging workups. Purpose To investigate the accuracy with which the label “allergic to ICAs” is applied. Material and Methods The medical records of 500 patients labeled “allergic to ICAs” at a single tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Patients were separated into three groups based on documentation in their medical records, as follows: Group 1, documented hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs; Group 2, documented ICA exposure with non-hypersensitivity adverse event (Group 2a) or without documented reaction (Group 2b); and Group 3, no documented prior exposure to an ICA. We then further reviewed the EMR to determine whether or not patients had subsequent administration of an ICA, whether or not they were given specific premedication, and whether or not they had a subsequent ICA-related event. Results A total of 16.6% of patients (n = 83) listed as “allergic to ICAs” had a documented hypersensitivity reaction following ICA administration (Group 1) while 58.6% (n = 293) of patients (Group 2) had a documented exposure to ICAs with either: (i) a non-hypersensitivity adverse event (23.5%, n = 69) or (ii) no record of a reaction to ICAs (76.5%, n = 224). The remaining 24.8% (n = 124), Group 3, had no record of exposure to an ICA, yet still carried the label. Conclusion The majority of patients carrying the label “allergic to ICAs” had no record of a prior hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0284185114568049
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1778059951</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0284185114568049</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1750439717</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-a8600800ace36137be3b45f4877a819221f1baf8747aecce99c810a695c98bd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkLFOwzAQhi0EoqWwMyGPLAFfYsf2hFBFKVIllu6R4zglVRoX2xFi64PAy_VJcNXCgISEbrjhvv_X6UPoEsgNAOe3JBUUBAOgLBeEyiM0hJyQhFDGjtFwd0529wE6835JCKScwSkapIyJONkQTab2DSute6eCwY3H4cXgVpWmxdvNh2pb4xaNxsHixlZNF6EKa9sFp3zAamG64Lebz7tzdFKr1puLwx6h-eRhPp4ms-fHp_H9LNEZJyFRIn4nCFHaZDlkvDRZSVlNBedKgExTqKFUteCUK6O1kVILICqXTEtRVtkIXe9r186-9saHYtV4bdpWdcb2vohOBGFSMvgHygjNJAceUbJHtbPeO1MXa9eslHsvgBQ7z8VvzzFydWjvy5WpfgLfYiOQ7AEfJRVL27suevm78Ataj4Ua</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1750439717</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How accurate is the label “allergic to iodinated contrast agents”?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Journals</source><creator>Mammarappallil, Joseph G ; Hiatt, Kevin D ; Vincent, William ; Bettmann, Michael A</creator><creatorcontrib>Mammarappallil, Joseph G ; Hiatt, Kevin D ; Vincent, William ; Bettmann, Michael A</creatorcontrib><description>Background Iodinated contrast agents (ICAs) are crucial to the use of many imaging studies. Reported allergies to ICAs in the medical record can interfere with optimal diagnostic imaging workups. Purpose To investigate the accuracy with which the label “allergic to ICAs” is applied. Material and Methods The medical records of 500 patients labeled “allergic to ICAs” at a single tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Patients were separated into three groups based on documentation in their medical records, as follows: Group 1, documented hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs; Group 2, documented ICA exposure with non-hypersensitivity adverse event (Group 2a) or without documented reaction (Group 2b); and Group 3, no documented prior exposure to an ICA. We then further reviewed the EMR to determine whether or not patients had subsequent administration of an ICA, whether or not they were given specific premedication, and whether or not they had a subsequent ICA-related event. Results A total of 16.6% of patients (n = 83) listed as “allergic to ICAs” had a documented hypersensitivity reaction following ICA administration (Group 1) while 58.6% (n = 293) of patients (Group 2) had a documented exposure to ICAs with either: (i) a non-hypersensitivity adverse event (23.5%, n = 69) or (ii) no record of a reaction to ICAs (76.5%, n = 224). The remaining 24.8% (n = 124), Group 3, had no record of exposure to an ICA, yet still carried the label. Conclusion The majority of patients carrying the label “allergic to ICAs” had no record of a prior hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0284-1851</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0284185114568049</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25585853</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Contrast agents ; Contrast Media - adverse effects ; Drug Hypersensitivity - epidemiology ; Electronic Health Records ; Exposure ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Imaging ; Labels ; Medical ; Optimization ; Patients ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Tertiary Care Centers</subject><ispartof>Acta radiologica (1987), 2016-01, Vol.57 (1), p.47-50</ispartof><rights>The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2015</rights><rights>The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2015.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-a8600800ace36137be3b45f4877a819221f1baf8747aecce99c810a695c98bd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-a8600800ace36137be3b45f4877a819221f1baf8747aecce99c810a695c98bd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0284185114568049$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0284185114568049$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25585853$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mammarappallil, Joseph G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiatt, Kevin D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vincent, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bettmann, Michael A</creatorcontrib><title>How accurate is the label “allergic to iodinated contrast agents”?</title><title>Acta radiologica (1987)</title><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><description>Background Iodinated contrast agents (ICAs) are crucial to the use of many imaging studies. Reported allergies to ICAs in the medical record can interfere with optimal diagnostic imaging workups. Purpose To investigate the accuracy with which the label “allergic to ICAs” is applied. Material and Methods The medical records of 500 patients labeled “allergic to ICAs” at a single tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Patients were separated into three groups based on documentation in their medical records, as follows: Group 1, documented hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs; Group 2, documented ICA exposure with non-hypersensitivity adverse event (Group 2a) or without documented reaction (Group 2b); and Group 3, no documented prior exposure to an ICA. We then further reviewed the EMR to determine whether or not patients had subsequent administration of an ICA, whether or not they were given specific premedication, and whether or not they had a subsequent ICA-related event. Results A total of 16.6% of patients (n = 83) listed as “allergic to ICAs” had a documented hypersensitivity reaction following ICA administration (Group 1) while 58.6% (n = 293) of patients (Group 2) had a documented exposure to ICAs with either: (i) a non-hypersensitivity adverse event (23.5%, n = 69) or (ii) no record of a reaction to ICAs (76.5%, n = 224). The remaining 24.8% (n = 124), Group 3, had no record of exposure to an ICA, yet still carried the label. Conclusion The majority of patients carrying the label “allergic to ICAs” had no record of a prior hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs.</description><subject>Contrast agents</subject><subject>Contrast Media - adverse effects</subject><subject>Drug Hypersensitivity - epidemiology</subject><subject>Electronic Health Records</subject><subject>Exposure</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Labels</subject><subject>Medical</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Tertiary Care Centers</subject><issn>0284-1851</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkLFOwzAQhi0EoqWwMyGPLAFfYsf2hFBFKVIllu6R4zglVRoX2xFi64PAy_VJcNXCgISEbrjhvv_X6UPoEsgNAOe3JBUUBAOgLBeEyiM0hJyQhFDGjtFwd0529wE6835JCKScwSkapIyJONkQTab2DSute6eCwY3H4cXgVpWmxdvNh2pb4xaNxsHixlZNF6EKa9sFp3zAamG64Lebz7tzdFKr1puLwx6h-eRhPp4ms-fHp_H9LNEZJyFRIn4nCFHaZDlkvDRZSVlNBedKgExTqKFUteCUK6O1kVILICqXTEtRVtkIXe9r186-9saHYtV4bdpWdcb2vohOBGFSMvgHygjNJAceUbJHtbPeO1MXa9eslHsvgBQ7z8VvzzFydWjvy5WpfgLfYiOQ7AEfJRVL27suevm78Ataj4Ua</recordid><startdate>201601</startdate><enddate>201601</enddate><creator>Mammarappallil, Joseph G</creator><creator>Hiatt, Kevin D</creator><creator>Vincent, William</creator><creator>Bettmann, Michael A</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201601</creationdate><title>How accurate is the label “allergic to iodinated contrast agents”?</title><author>Mammarappallil, Joseph G ; Hiatt, Kevin D ; Vincent, William ; Bettmann, Michael A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-a8600800ace36137be3b45f4877a819221f1baf8747aecce99c810a695c98bd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Contrast agents</topic><topic>Contrast Media - adverse effects</topic><topic>Drug Hypersensitivity - epidemiology</topic><topic>Electronic Health Records</topic><topic>Exposure</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Labels</topic><topic>Medical</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Tertiary Care Centers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mammarappallil, Joseph G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiatt, Kevin D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vincent, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bettmann, Michael A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mammarappallil, Joseph G</au><au>Hiatt, Kevin D</au><au>Vincent, William</au><au>Bettmann, Michael A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How accurate is the label “allergic to iodinated contrast agents”?</atitle><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><date>2016-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>47</spage><epage>50</epage><pages>47-50</pages><issn>0284-1851</issn><eissn>1600-0455</eissn><abstract>Background Iodinated contrast agents (ICAs) are crucial to the use of many imaging studies. Reported allergies to ICAs in the medical record can interfere with optimal diagnostic imaging workups. Purpose To investigate the accuracy with which the label “allergic to ICAs” is applied. Material and Methods The medical records of 500 patients labeled “allergic to ICAs” at a single tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Patients were separated into three groups based on documentation in their medical records, as follows: Group 1, documented hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs; Group 2, documented ICA exposure with non-hypersensitivity adverse event (Group 2a) or without documented reaction (Group 2b); and Group 3, no documented prior exposure to an ICA. We then further reviewed the EMR to determine whether or not patients had subsequent administration of an ICA, whether or not they were given specific premedication, and whether or not they had a subsequent ICA-related event. Results A total of 16.6% of patients (n = 83) listed as “allergic to ICAs” had a documented hypersensitivity reaction following ICA administration (Group 1) while 58.6% (n = 293) of patients (Group 2) had a documented exposure to ICAs with either: (i) a non-hypersensitivity adverse event (23.5%, n = 69) or (ii) no record of a reaction to ICAs (76.5%, n = 224). The remaining 24.8% (n = 124), Group 3, had no record of exposure to an ICA, yet still carried the label. Conclusion The majority of patients carrying the label “allergic to ICAs” had no record of a prior hypersensitivity reaction to ICAs.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>25585853</pmid><doi>10.1177/0284185114568049</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0284-1851
ispartof Acta radiologica (1987), 2016-01, Vol.57 (1), p.47-50
issn 0284-1851
1600-0455
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1778059951
source MEDLINE; SAGE Journals
subjects Contrast agents
Contrast Media - adverse effects
Drug Hypersensitivity - epidemiology
Electronic Health Records
Exposure
Hospitals
Humans
Imaging
Labels
Medical
Optimization
Patients
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Tertiary Care Centers
title How accurate is the label “allergic to iodinated contrast agents”?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T22%3A46%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20accurate%20is%20the%20label%20%E2%80%9Callergic%20to%20iodinated%20contrast%20agents%E2%80%9D?&rft.jtitle=Acta%20radiologica%20(1987)&rft.au=Mammarappallil,%20Joseph%20G&rft.date=2016-01&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=47&rft.epage=50&rft.pages=47-50&rft.issn=0284-1851&rft.eissn=1600-0455&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0284185114568049&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1750439717%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1750439717&rft_id=info:pmid/25585853&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0284185114568049&rfr_iscdi=true