S'abonner

Impact of iodinated contrast allergies on emergency department operations - 18/10/22

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.052 
Yosef Berlyand, MD a, b, John Anthony Fraga, BS b, c, d, Marc D. Succi, MD b, c, d, Brian J. Yun, MD, MBA, MPH a, b, e, Andy Hung-Yi Lee, MD, MBA a, b, Joshua J. Baugh, MD, MPP, MHCM a, b, David Whitehead, MD, MBA a, b, d, Ali S. Raja, MD, MBA, MPH a, b, Anand M. Prabhakar, MD, MBA b, c,
a Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA, USA 
b Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St., Boston, MA, USA 
c Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA, USA 
d Medically Engineered Solutions in Healthcare Incubator, Innovation in Operations Research Center (MESH IO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA 
e Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 725 Albany Street, Boston, MA, USA 

Corresponding author at: 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA 02114, USA.55 Fruit St.BostonMA02114USA

Abstract

Objectives

Adverse reactions to intravenous (IV) iodinated contrast media are classified by the American College of Radiology (ACR) Manual on Contrast Media as either allergic-like (ALR) or physiologic (PR). Premedication may be beneficial for patients who have prior documented mild or moderate ALR. We sought to perform a retrospective analysis of patients who received computed tomography (CT) imaging in our emergency department (ED) to establish whether listing of an iodinated contrast media allergy results in a delay in care, increases the use of non-contrast studies, and to quantify the incidence of listing iodinated contrast allergies which do not necessitate premedication.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of CT scans performed in our academic medical center ED during a 6-month period. There were 12,737 unique patients of whom 454 patients had a listed iodinated contrast allergy. Of these, 106 received IV contrast and were categorized as to whether premedication was necessary. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and operational outcomes. A multivariate linear regression model was used to predict time from order to start (OTS time) of CT imaging while controlling for co-variates.

Results

Non-allergic patients underwent contrast-enhanced CT imaging at a significantly higher rate than allergic patients (45.9% vs. 23.3%, p < 0.01). The OTS time for allergic patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT imaging was 360 min and significantly longer than the OTS time for non-allergic patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT imaging (118 min, p < 0.001). Of the 106 allergic patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT imaging, 27 (25.5%) did not meet ACR criteria for necessitating premedication. The average OTS time for these 27 patients was 296 min, significantly longer than the OTS for non-allergic patients (118 min, p < 0.01) and did not differ from the OTS time for the 79 patients who did meet premedication criteria (382 min, p = 0.23). A multivariate linear regression showed that OTS time was significantly longer if a contrast allergy was present (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A chart-documented iodinated contrast allergy resulted in a significant increase in time to obtain a contrast-enhanced CT study. This delay persisted among patients who did not meet ACR criteria for premedication. Appropriately deferring premedication could potentially reduce the ED length-of-stay by over 4 h for these patients.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Emergency department operations, Iodinated contrast, Contrast allergies, Emergency radiology


Plan


© 2022  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 61

P. 127-130 - novembre 2022 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • The difference between arterial pCO2 and etCO2 after cardiac arrest – Outcome predictor or marker of unfavorable resuscitation circumstances?
  • Matthias Mueller, Emmely Jankow, Juergen Grafeneder, Christian Schoergenhofer, Michael Poppe, Christoph Schriefl, Christian Clodi, Moritz Koch, Florian Ettl, Michael Holzer, Heidrun Losert
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Ketamine is not associated with more post-intubation hypotension than etomidate in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation
  • Mitchell Foster, Michael Self, Alon Gelber, Brent Kennis, Daniel R. Lasoff, Stephen R. Hayden, Gabriel Wardi

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.