Contrast-enhanced neuroimaging is often necessary for the diagnosis and care of patients with diseases of the central nervous system. Although contrast is generally well tolerated and allergy to contrast is rare, allergic reactions can be severe and life threatening. Therefore, physicians should take care to prevent severe contrast allergy. In this review, we will discuss contrast allergy as well as potential strategies to reduce the risk of severe reactions in patients who require neuroimaging techniques with contrast. First, we discuss the clinical presentation and pathogenesis of contrast allergy and the risk factors associated with reactions. We then review methods to reduce the risk of future contrast reactions through improved patient education and documentation strategies, use of alternate imaging modalities or contrast media, premedication, and desensitization.
Citation: Anna Fusco, Logan Pucci, Kevin Pierre, Adam Wolberg, Coulter Small, John Cerillo, Mohammad Reza Hosseini Siyanaki, Brandon Lucke-Wold. Contrast allergies for neurological imaging: When to proceed[J]. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(4): 216-227. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022016
[1] | Seda Çevik, Uğur Altaş, Zeynep Meva Altaş, Mehmet Yaşar Özkars . Investigation of clinical characteristics of children with food allergy and factors associated with tolerance development. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2025, 9(2): 98-107. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2025007 |
[2] | Melissa Foster . The backfiring effect of fairness salience in health messages regarding food allergies and diabetes. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(3): 106-125. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022010 |
[3] | Temilorun Ajibade, Cecilia Bukutu, Aleksandra Marinkovic, Chuku Okorie, Ricardo Izurieta, Adekunle Sanyaolu . A systematic review of the knowledge and training of food service workers on food allergies. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2023, 7(3): 195-212. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2023014 |
[4] | Shkar Rzgar K. Rostam, Khattab Ahmed Mustafa Shekhany, Harem Othman Smail . Prevalence of common food allergies in Erbil Province, Kurdistan Region of Iraq. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2020, 4(4): 117-127. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2020010 |
[5] | Joseph J. Dolence, Hirohito Kita . Allergic sensitization to peanuts is enhanced in mice fed a high-fat diet. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2020, 4(4): 88-99. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2020008 |
[6] | McKenna S. Vininski, Sunanda Rajput, Nicholas J. Hobbs, Joseph J. Dolence . Understanding sex differences in the allergic immune response to food. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(3): 90-105. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022009 |
[7] | Marcella Reale, Xu Guo . Annual Report 2024. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2025, 9(1): 1-7. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2025001 |
[8] | Haiyan Guo, Mingsheng Lei, Jinan Ma, Hongchun Du, Youming Zhang . Allergy and ferroptosis. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2025, 9(1): 8-26. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2025002 |
[9] | Gianna Moscato, Gianni Pala . Occupational allergy to food-derived allergens. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2017, 1(1): 21-30. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2017.1.21 |
[10] | Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann . On the way to allergy prevention—future perspective or illusory aim?. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2017, 1(1): 15-20. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2017.1.15 |
Contrast-enhanced neuroimaging is often necessary for the diagnosis and care of patients with diseases of the central nervous system. Although contrast is generally well tolerated and allergy to contrast is rare, allergic reactions can be severe and life threatening. Therefore, physicians should take care to prevent severe contrast allergy. In this review, we will discuss contrast allergy as well as potential strategies to reduce the risk of severe reactions in patients who require neuroimaging techniques with contrast. First, we discuss the clinical presentation and pathogenesis of contrast allergy and the risk factors associated with reactions. We then review methods to reduce the risk of future contrast reactions through improved patient education and documentation strategies, use of alternate imaging modalities or contrast media, premedication, and desensitization.
Neuroimaging employs imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess the structure and function of the CNS, diagnose diseases, determine prognosis and proper treatments, and plan or guide surgical interventions [1]–[5]. CT detects how X-rays differentially traverse and attenuate through fluids and tissues to construct a series of cross-sectional images in three planes, allowing for synthesis of a three-dimensional image [6],[7]. Relatively short scan times make CT an invaluable tool in emergency situations. Non-contrast CT is used for evaluation of brain infarcts, hemorrhages, hydrocephalus, herniation, and skull or vertebral fracture [8]. Contrast can be utilized in traditional CT scans to allow for better tissue differentiation and identification of pathological structures such as masses or infections [8]. In addition, continuous X-ray imaging with contrast can be used in digital subtraction angiography (DSA) to evaluate the cerebral vasculature as well as to identify pathological blood flow [9]–[13]. DSA is used to diagnose and evaluate intracranial aneurysms, arteriovenous malformations, cerebral vasospasm, and other cerebrovascular abnormalities [12]. The most used contrast media in X-ray-based modalities such as CT and DSA are iodinated contrast media, which contain a benzene ring with three iodine molecules which block X-rays and allow for visualization.
MRI uses a powerful magnet to align protons in one plane and a radiofrequency to disrupt that alignment. The MRI machine then detects the time and energy required for hydrogen atoms to realign with the magnetic field in a process called relaxation. This information can in turn be used to infer local tissue properties. MRI offers superior tissue resolution compared to CT and does not use ionizing radiation [5],[14]. However, MRI is more expensive and takes longer to complete [14]. MRI has broad clinical applications in neuroimaging and can be used to visualize structural, inflammatory, myelin, and proliferative pathology in the CNS [5],[15],[16]. Contrast-enhanced MRI allows for visualization of small lesions, cerebral vasculature, primary and secondary CNS tumors, and blood-brain barrier integrity [5],[17]–[19]. The most used contrast media for MRI are gadolinium-based contrast media which have unpaired electrons that allow for a high magnetic moment and shortened T1 relaxation time [5].
Although contrast media is an important, and often necessary tool for neuroimaging, contrast can rarely cause allergic reactions, which can be severe or even life threatening. Understanding these reactions and how to reduce their incidence or severity is crucial. In this paper, we will discuss the physiology behind contrast allergy and ways to reduce the risk of allergic reactions such as documentation of previous allergic reactions, use of alternate imaging strategies, premedication, and desensitization.
Iodinated contrast for X-ray-based imaging and gadolinium contrast for MRI imaging can cause acute or delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Whether immediate reactions to iodinated and gadolinium contrast agents are allergic or allergic-like is still controversial [20]. Most immediate reactions appear to be allergic-like or anaphylactoid, and although they closely resemble type I hypersensitivity reactions, they lack hallmark characteristics such as mediation through anti-contrast IgE and requisite prior exposure [21]–[25]. The pathogenesis of allergic-like reactions to contrast agents is still being elucidated and is most likely multifactorial. It is hypothesized that contrast media can bind to nonspecific sites on IgE molecules of mast cells and basophils, resulting in their activation [22],[24]–[27]. Additionally, local changes in osmolarity and ion concentrations and complement activation by contrast media can also activate mast cells and basophils [26],[28],[29]. Mast cell and basophil activation results in the release of histamine, tryptase, and inflammatory mediators [21]–[23],[27],[30]. Although most patients with immediate reactions to contrast have an allergic-like reaction, some patients do appear to have a more classic type I hypersensitivity reaction mediated by anti-contrast IgE [31]–[36].
The clinical manifestations of immediate allergic and allergic-like reactions are similar. Immediate reactions begin within the first hour after contrast administration and can range from mild to severe. A mild reaction, which is usually self-limiting and does not require intervention, can present with symptoms such as limited urticaria or pruritis [21],[37],[38]. A moderate reaction can cause symptoms such as throat tightness, facial edema, and bronchospasm. Severe reactions can be life threatening and can present with pulmonary edema, anaphylaxis, and hypotension [21],[38]. In terms of treatment, there is no distinction between allergic and allergic-like reactions. For mild reactions, treatment is not usually necessary and can consist of symptom management. Severe reactions should be managed by ensuring a patent airway and adequate oxygenation and administering epinephrine and corticosteroids [21],[22],[28],[37],[39].
Non-immediate reactions to contrast media occur between 1 hour and 1 week post contrast administration and are T cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reactions [22],[23],[28],[38],[40],[41]. Delayed reactions are traditionally milder than acute reactions and can present as urticaria, maculopapular rash, pruritis, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and rarely hypotension [22],[28],[38]. However, potentially life-threatening cases of severe cutaneous drug reactions such as acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, Stevens–Johnson Syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis have been reported [22],[28],[38],[40],[42]–[45].
The greatest risk factor for allergic and allergic-like reactions to a contrast agent is a personal history of a reaction to that agent [21],[40],[46]. Because allergic-like reactions are not mediated by antibodies to the contrast, one reaction does not guarantee a repeat reaction, but does increase the risk [39],[47],[48]. Atopy and asthma may also increase one's risk of allergic-like immediate reactions [39],[47],[48]. It may be reasonable to use a contrast with a lower risk of reaction, such as low-osmotic or nonionic contrast media in patients with atopy and asthma due to their increased risk [22],[49]–[51]. However, current guidelines recommend against contrast media restriction based on asthma and atopy [37]. Despite common thinking and inclusion in screening criteria, a seafood allergy does not increase the risk of allergy to contrast media [48],[52]–[54]. While seafood, like many other food products, contains iodine, it is unlikely that IgE or T cell-mediated reactions to contrast media are due to antibodies against iodine [54],[55]. Other characteristics have been described as increasing one's risk for developing contrast allergy, including female gender, other drug allergy, mastocytosis, severe cardiovascular disease, high serum creatine, and the use of certain medications like beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, and IL-2 [28],[37],[46],[47],[56]–[61]. However, studies have shown that these do not increase one's risk enough to contraindicate receiving contrast or otherwise alter the standard of care [37],[47],[48].
Collecting an accurate history of previous allergic reactions to a contrast medium is essential in assessing a patient's risk for a reaction to that contrast or similar contrast media. However, obtaining that information can be difficult. Ruff C et al. found that in a cohort of 307 patients who reported a history of contrast allergy, 98.4% of participants were unable to name which contrast agent or what type of contrast caused their reaction [62]. Moreover, only about 40% of participants knew the name of the facility where they had the reaction or what city they were in at the time, making it difficult for a provider to request the appropriate health records to determine which contrast to avoid [62]. Educating patients about their reactions so that they can inform medical professionals about their histories during future scans could help prevent repeat reactions. In addition, documentation of allergic or allergic-like reactions to contrast in the electronic medical record needs improvement [63],[64]. Studies looking at the quality of contrast reaction documentation have found most records are in free text, which can be difficult to find, especially if the medical professional is not specifically looking for it [63],[64]. It is important to include clear and correct information about which contrast caused the reaction as well as the characteristics of the reaction [63]. Along with patient education and proper documentation, implementing “time out” checklists prior to scans involving contrast may be an effective way to reduce medical error and repeat reactions to contrast [65].
Skin tests and drug provocation tests may be helpful for patients with a history of reaction to contrast when imaging without contrast is not an option [20],[28],[38],[40],[44],[48]. For patients with a history of immediate reactions who have records or knowledge of which contrast agent caused their reaction, a skin prick test can be used to determine which other contrast agents may be safe to use as alternatives [20],[28],[40],[44],[48]. For patients who do not know which contrast agent they reacted to, an intradermal test should be performed as a panel to determine which contrast likely caused the reaction, followed by a skin prick test to determine which other agents are likely safe to use [20],[28],[40],[44],[48]. Patients with a history of mild delayed reactions to contrast should have either a patch test or an intradermal test that is read after 24–48 hours to confirm allergy to the specific contrast agent, followed by a skin prick test to determine potentially safe alternatives [20],[28],[40],[44],[48]. While skin tests offer promise as a potential screening and diagnostic tool in high-risk patients, there is still limited and mixed evidence to support their efficacy. The variable sensitivities between studies could be problematic as patients could still suffer a severe reaction to a contrast agent despite a negative skin prick test [20],[28],[31],[40],[44],[48],[66]–[73]. However, skin tests should be completed to ensure that allergic reactions are not missed [31],[48]. The drug provocation test may be helpful in confirming the results of the skin test [20],[28],[40],[44],[48]. The drug provocation test can potentially elicit a severe reaction so it should only be performed for patients who have already had a negative skin prick test to that agent [20],[28],[40],[44],[48]. Furthermore, it is possible that the drug provocation test could elicit temporary desensitization, causing a false negative [48]. Patients with a history of reaction to contrast should be given alternate contrast agents with caution, and treatment should be on hand in the event of a severe reaction despite a negative skin test and negative drug provocation test [20],[28],[40],[44],[48]. Guidelines regarding skin tests and drug provocation tests still vary greatly, and further research should be conducted to establish a consensus on the role of skin and drug provocation testing in the care of patients with previous contrast reactions.
Contrast should be avoided in patients with a history of immediate or delayed reactions to a specific contrast agent, especially when that reaction was severe [22],[37],[66],[74]. If a patient requires imaging, the physician and patient should discuss risks and benefits to receiving or forgoing contrast in their specific case. If possible, scans should be conducted without the use of contrast or via other imaging modalities [22],[74]. The cross reactivity of contrast agents is still being elucidated and may differ among patients [23],[28],[36],[38],[55],[75]. Some studies support switching to a contrast agent with a different structure [37],[40],[76]–[81]. Skin testing and drug provocation tests may also help guide physicians as to which contrast agent may be safe to use. However, there are patients who still have repeat reactions despite these measures [73].
For patients with a history of reaction to contrast, premedication is another strategy to reduce the risk of reaction in situations when contrast is required. The use of premedication is controversial [20],[22],[28],[40],[44],[48],[52],[77],[78],[81]–[84]. Studies have shown that premedication is useful in reducing the incidence of, but not preventing, immediate and non-immediate reactions to contrast [22],[52],[80],[85]–[87]. Furthermore, patients can still have life threatening reactions despite premedication, and contrast should be used with caution in patients with a history of reaction [22],[52],[73]. Premedication may be more effective when combined with other prevention strategies [73],[76],[79],[88]. In cases where imaging needs to be planned for high risk individuals, the American College of Radiology recommends one of two strategies:
Repeated doses of 50 mg oral prednisone at 13 hours, 7 hours, and 1 hour prior to contrast administration with 50mg of diphenhydramine administered 1 hour prior to contrast
Or
Repeat doses of 32 mg oral methylprednisolone at 12 and 2 hours prior to contrast administration with or without the addition of 50 mg diphenhydramine 1 hour prior to contrast
In some cases, high risk patients may need urgent imaging that impedes the ability to perform a 12–13 hour premedication regimen. Accelerated strategies can be used in these situations, however, there is limited evidence to support their efficacy [37]. The American College of Radiology suggests these accelerated premedication regimens:
Intravenous methylprednisolone sodium succinate 40 mg or hydrocortisone sodium succinate 200 mg administered every 4 hours for an average duration of 4–5 hours, plus intravenous diphenhydramine 40mg 1 hour prior to contrast administration
Or
Intravenous dexamethasone sodium succinate 7.5 mg every 4 hours for an average duration of 4–5 hours, plus intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg 1 hour prior to contrast administration
Or
Intravenous methylprednisolone sodium succinate 40 mg or hydrocortisone sodium succinate 200 mg, plus intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg administered 1 hour prior to contrast administration. This combination may be used in emergent situations where a 4-hour pre-medication window is not feasible. However, there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of this strategy
For patients with significant histories of allergic-like reactions to radiocontrast media who may be at risk for breakthrough reactions even with premedication, and for whom no other therapeutic alternative is available, rapid intravenous desensitization may offer an effective preventative strategy. Several case reports have shown that administering serial dilutions of iodixanol, an iodine-containing nonionic radiocontrast agent, in escalating doses (until the total amount of exposed drug reaches the dose required by the intervention) every 10 minutes beginning two hours before coronary angiography successfully prevented subsequent immediate contrast reactions in high-risk patients [78],[90],[91]. Adverse effects of the desensitization process, if present, were minor (pruritus) and managed with diphenhydramine [90],[91]. The mechanism of desensitization is still debated, but one hypothesis is that exposure to increasing amounts of antigen alters the actin framework in mast cells such that inward calcium flux is prevented and mast cells cannot degranulate [92],[93]. The duration of this strategy's effect is linked to the half-life of the desensitizing radiocontrast medium; for iodixanol, this suggests it needs to be repeated for interventions more than 48 hours apart [91].
Contrast media greatly enhances the diagnostic utility of neuroimaging techniques such as CT and MRI, but rarely can elicit hypersensitivity reactions in certain patients which can be life threatening. Contrast reactions are diverse both in mechanisms and severity, and treatment should be informed foremost by the patient's presenting symptoms. The most predictive risk factor for future reactions is a history of reactions, so the importance of obtaining and documenting an accurate history of reactions in the medical record cannot be overstated. For individuals with elevated risk, recommendations for alternative contrast or and/or imaging modalities, sensitivity testing, premedication, and rapid desensitization may be appropriate based on the unique needs of the patient and following a thorough risk-benefit discussion between the patient and provider.
[1] |
Essig M, Dinkel J, Gutierrez JE (2012) Use of contrast media in neuroimaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 20: 633-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2012.08.001 ![]() |
[2] |
Smith-Bindman R, Kwan ML, Marlow EC, et al. (2019) Trends in use of medical imaging in US health care systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000–2016. JAMA 322: 843-856. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.11456 ![]() |
[3] |
Kim BS, Gutierrez JE (2012) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in neuroimaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 20: 649-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2012.07.003 ![]() |
[4] |
George E, Guenette JP, Lee TC (2018) Introduction to neuroimaging. Am J Med 131: 346-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.11.014 ![]() |
[5] |
Golec W, Jakimów-Kostrzewa A, Mruk B, et al. (2020) Role of gadolinium-based contrast agents in neurological disorders. Neurol Neurochir Pol 54: 399-409. https://doi.org/10.5603/PJNNS.a2020.0070 ![]() |
[6] |
McCollough CH, Morin RL (1994) The technical design and performance of ultrafast computed tomography. Radiol Clin N Am 32: 521-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-8389(22)00387-6 ![]() |
[7] |
Brink JA, Heiken JP, Wang G, et al. (1994) Helical CT: principles and technical considerations. Radiographics 14: 887-893. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.14.4.7938775 ![]() |
[8] |
Hollingsworth J, Mirabelli MM (2017) Neurologic emergencies on computed tomography of the head. Semin Ultrasound CT 38: 384-398. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2017.02.005 ![]() |
[9] |
Wolpert SM, Caplan LR (1992) Current role of cerebral angiography in the diagnosis of cerebrovascular diseases. Am J Roentgenol 159: 191-197. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.159.1.1609697 ![]() |
[10] |
Jeans WD (1990) The development and use of digital subtraction angiography. Brit J Radiol 63: 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-63-747-161 ![]() |
[11] |
Rustemi O, Alaraj A, Shakur SF, et al. (2015) Detection of unruptured intracranial aneurysms on noninvasive imaging. Is there still a role for digital subtraction angiography?. Surg Neurol Int 6: 175. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.170029 ![]() |
[12] |
Alakbarzade V, Pereira AC (2018) Cerebral catheter angiography and its complications. Pract Neurol 18: 393. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2018-001986 ![]() |
[13] |
Hoh BL, Cheung AC, Rabinov JD, et al. (2004) Results of a prospective protocol of computed tomographic angiography in place of catheter angiography as the only diagnostic and pretreatment planning study for cerebral aneurysms by a combined neurovascular team. Neurosurgery 54: 1329-1340. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000125325.22576.83 ![]() |
[14] |
Teleanu DM, Chircov C, Grumezescu AM, et al. (2019) Contrast agents delivery: An up-to-date review of nanodiagnostics in neuroimaging. Nanomaterials 9: 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9040542 ![]() |
[15] | Bhargava R, Hahn G, Hirsch W, et al. (2013) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: review and recommendations for current practice. Magn Reson Insights 6: 95-111. https://doi.org/10.4137/MRI.S12561 |
[16] | Cammoun D, Hendee WR, Davis KA (1985) Clinical applications of magnetic resonance imaging—current status. West J Med 143: 793-803. |
[17] |
Essig M, Anzalone N, Combs SE, et al. (2012) MR imaging of neoplastic central nervous system lesions: review and recommendations for current practice. Am J Neuroradiol 33: 803-817. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2640 ![]() |
[18] |
Lauffer RB (1987) Paramagnetic metal complexes as water proton relaxation agents for NMR imaging: theory and design. Chem Rev 87: 901-927. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr00081a003 ![]() |
[19] |
Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J, et al. (2016) 25 years of contrast-enhanced MRI: Developments, current challenges and future perspectives. Adv Ther 33: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-015-0275-4 ![]() |
[20] |
Torres MJ, Trautmann A, Böhm I, et al. (2021) Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity. Allergy 76: 1325-1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14656 ![]() |
[21] |
Huynh K, Baghdanian AH, Baghdanian AA, et al. (2020) Updated guidelines for intravenous contrast use for CT and MRI. Emerg Radiol 27: 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-020-01751-y ![]() |
[22] |
Pasternak JJ, Williamson EE (2012) Clinical pharmacology, uses, and adverse reactions of iodinated contrast agents: a primer for the non-radiologist. Mayo Clin Proc 87: 390-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.01.012 ![]() |
[23] |
Wulf NR, Schmitz J, Choi A, et al. (2021) Iodine allergy: Common misperceptions. Am J Health-Syst Ph 78: 781-793. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxab033 ![]() |
[24] |
Lasser EC (2011) X-ray contrast media mechanisms in the release of mast cell contents: understanding these leads to a treatment for allergies. J Allergy 2011: 276258. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/276258 ![]() |
[25] |
Bush WH, Segal AJ (2009) Recognition and treatment of acute contrast reactions. Appl Radiol 38: 16-20. https://doi.org/10.37549/AR1728 ![]() |
[26] |
Szebeni J (2004) Hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media: the role of complement activation. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 4: 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-004-0038-9 ![]() |
[27] |
Laroche D, Aimone-Gastin I, Dubois F, et al. (1998) Mechanisms of severe, immediate reactions to iodinated contrast material. Radiology 209: 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.209.1.9769830 ![]() |
[28] |
Ingelmo AR, Diaz ID, Moreno RC, et al. (2016) Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media. J Invest Allerg Clin 26: 144-155. https://doi.org/10.18176/jiaci.0058 ![]() |
[29] |
Stellato C, de Crescenzo G, Patella V, et al. (1996) Human basophil/mast cell releasability. XI. Heterogeneity of the effects of contrast media on mediator release. J Allergy Clin Immunol 97: 838-850. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-6749(96)80162-X ![]() |
[30] |
Fok JS, Smith WB (2017) Hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 17: 241-246. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0000000000000371 ![]() |
[31] |
Trcka J, Schmidt C, Seitz CS, et al. (2008) Anaphylaxis to iodinated contrast material: nonallergic hypersensitivity or IgE-mediated allergy?. Am J Roentgenol 190: 666-670. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2872 ![]() |
[32] |
Mita H, Tadokoro K, Akiyama K (1998) Detection of IgE antibody to a radiocontrast medium. Allergy 53: 1133-1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03832.x ![]() |
[33] | Bansie RD, Karim AF, van Maaren MS, et al. (2021) Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review. Int J Immunopath Ph 35: 20587384211015061. https://doi.org/10.1177/20587384211015061 |
[34] |
Seta V, Gaouar H, Badaoui A, et al. (2019) Low-dose provocation and skin tests in patients with hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast agents. Clin Exp Allergy 49: 724-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.13306 ![]() |
[35] | Tomás M, Aparicio VF, Remon LZ, et al. (2012) Skin reactions to gadolinium-based contrast media. J Invest Allerg Clin 22: 292-293. |
[36] |
Clement O, Dewachter P, Mouton-Faivre C, et al. (2018) Immediate hypersensitivity to contrast agents: The French 5-year CIRTACI Study. eClinicalMedicine 1: 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.07.002 ![]() |
[37] | (2022) American College of Radiology, ACR Manual on Contrast Media. American College of Radiology. Available form: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual. |
[38] |
Bara MTG, Gallardo-Higueras A, Moreno EM, et al. (2022) Hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast media. Front Allergy 3: 813927. https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2022.813927 ![]() |
[39] |
Morcos SK, Thomsen HS (2001) Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media. Eur Radiol 11: 1267-1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000729 ![]() |
[40] |
Brockow K, Christiansen C, Kanny G, et al. (2005) Management of hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media. Allergy 60: 150-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00745.x ![]() |
[41] |
Boehm I, Heverhagen JT (2018) Delayed reaction following gadolinium-based contrast agent application. Magn Reson Imaging 50: 10-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2018.03.007 ![]() |
[42] |
Tasker F, Fleming H, McNeill G, et al. (2019) Contrast media and cutaneous reactions. Part 2: Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media. Clin Exp Dermatol 44: 844-860. https://doi.org/10.1111/ced.13991 ![]() |
[43] | Gavin M, Sharp L, Walker K, et al. (2019) Contrast-induced generalized bullous fixed drug eruption resembling Stevens–Johnson syndrome. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 32: 601-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2019.1644147 |
[44] |
Kang HR, Jeong J, Brockow K (2022) Diagnosis and prevention of hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 14: 348-360. https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2022.14.4.348 ![]() |
[45] | Rydberg J, Charles J, Aspelin P (1998) Frequency of late allergy-like adverse reactions following injection of intravascular non-ionic contrast media. A retrospective study comparing a non-ionic monomeric contrast medium with a non-ionic dimeric contrast medium. Acta Radiol 39: 219-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841859809172183 |
[46] |
Jung JW, Kang HR, Kim MH, et al. (2012) Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based MR contrast media. Radiology 264: 414-422. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112025 ![]() |
[47] |
Lang DM, Alpern MB, Visintainer PF, et al. (1993) Elevated risk of anaphylactoid reaction from radiographic contrast media is associated with both beta-blocker exposure and cardiovascular disorders. Arch Intern Med 153: 2033-2040. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1993.00410170119012 ![]() |
[48] |
Sánchez-Borges M, Aberer W, Brockow K, et al. (2019) Controversies in drug allergy: radiographic contrast media. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 7: 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2018.06.030 ![]() |
[49] |
Behzadi AH, Zhao Y, Farooq Z, et al. (2018) Immediate allergic reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 286: 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162740 ![]() |
[50] |
Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA (2001) Prevention of generalized reactions to contrast media: a consensus report and guidelines. Eur Radiol 11: 1720-1728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000778 ![]() |
[51] |
Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, et al. (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 175: 621-628. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343107 ![]() |
[52] |
Schopp JG, Iyer RS, Wang CL, et al. (2013) Allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media: premedication considerations for patients at risk. Emerg Radiol 20: 299-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-012-1081-9 ![]() |
[53] |
Beaty AD, Lieberman PL, Slavin RG (2008) Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: Are physicians propagating a myth?. Am J Med 121: 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.08.025 ![]() |
[54] |
Schabelman E, Witting M (2010) The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: a medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med 39: 701-707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2009.10.014 ![]() |
[55] |
Lerch M, Keller M, Britschgi M, et al. (2007) Cross-reactivity patterns of T cells specific for iodinated contrast media. J Allergy Clin Immunol 119: 1529-1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.02.007 ![]() |
[56] |
Ansell G, Tweedie MCK, West CR, et al. (1980) The current status of reactions to intravenous contrast media. Invest Radiol 15: S32-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198011001-00010 ![]() |
[57] | Hosoya T, Yamaguchi K, Akutsu T, et al. (2000) Delayed adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media and their risk factors. Radiat Med 18: 39-45. |
[58] |
Choyke PL, Miller DL, Lotze MT, et al. (1992) Delayed reactions to contrast media after interleukin-2 immunotherapy. Radiology 183: 111-114. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549655 ![]() |
[59] |
Bettmann MA, Heeren T, Greenfield A, et al. (2015) Adverse events with radiographic contrast agents: results of the SCVIR Contrast Agent Registry. Radiology 203: 611-620. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.203.3.9169677 ![]() |
[60] |
Lang DM, Alpern MB, Visintainer PF, et al. (1991) Increased risk for anaphylactoid reaction from contrast media in patients on beta-adrenergic blockers or with asthma. Ann Intern Med 115: 270-276. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-115-4-270 ![]() |
[61] |
Christiansen C, Pichler WJ, Skotland T (2000) Delayed allergy-like reactions to X-ray contrast media: mechanistic considerations. Eur Radiol 10: 1965-1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000543 ![]() |
[62] |
Ruff C, Banayan E, Overdeck D (2021) Patients have very limited knowledge of their contrast allergies. Clin Imag 79: 319-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.07.021 ![]() |
[63] |
Deng F, Li MD, Wong A, et al. (2019) Quality of documentation of contrast agent allergies in electronic health records. J Am Coll Radiol 16: 1027-1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2019.01.027 ![]() |
[64] |
Li L, Foer D, Hallisey RK, et al. (2022) Improving allergy documentation: A retrospective electronic health record system-wide patient safety initiative. J Patient Saf 18: e108-e114. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000711 ![]() |
[65] |
Corso R, Vacirca F, Patelli C, et al. (2014) Use of “Time-Out” checklist in interventional radiology procedures as a tool to enhance patient safety. Radiol Med 119: 828-834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0397-9 ![]() |
[66] |
Brockow K, Romano A, Aberer W, et al. (2009) Skin testing in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media—a European multicenter study. Allergy 64: 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01832.x ![]() |
[67] |
Goksel O, Aydın O, Atasoy C, et al. (2011) Hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media: prevalence, risk factors and the role of skin tests in diagnosis—a cross-sectional survey. Int Arch Allergy Imm 155: 297-305. https://doi.org/10.1159/000320760 ![]() |
[68] | Salas M, Gomez F, Fernandez TD, et al. (2011) Diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media. Allergy 68: 1203-1206. |
[69] |
Dewachter P, Mouton-Faivre C, Felden F (2001) Allergy and contrast media. Allergy 56: 250-251. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.056003250.x ![]() |
[70] |
Kvedariene V, Martins P, Rouanet L, et al. (2006) Diagnosis of iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity: results of a 6-year period. Clin Exp Allergy 36: 1072-1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02532.x ![]() |
[71] |
Mayorga C, Fernandez TD, Montañez MI, et al. (2019) Recent developments and highlights in drug hypersensitivity. Allergy 74: 2368-2381. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14061 ![]() |
[72] |
Yoon SH, Lee SY, Kang HR, et al. (2015) Skin tests in patients with hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast media: a meta-analysis. Allergy 70: 625-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.12589 ![]() |
[73] |
Walker DT, Davenport MS, McGrath TA, et al. (2020) Breakthrough hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents and strategies to decrease subsequent reaction rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 296: 312-321. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192855 ![]() |
[74] |
Farnam K, Chang C, Teuber S, et al. (2012) Nonallergic drug hypersensitivity reactions. Int Arch Allergy Imm 159: 327-345. https://doi.org/10.1159/000339690 ![]() |
[75] |
Nelson KL, Gifford LM, Lauber-Huber C, et al. (2015) Clinical safety of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 196: 439-443. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.196.2.7617858 ![]() |
[76] |
Park SJ, Kang DY, Sohn KH, et al. (2018) Immediate mild reactions to CT with iodinated contrast media: Strategy of contrast media readministration without corticosteroids. Radiology 288: 710-716. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172524 ![]() |
[77] |
McDonald JS, Larson NB, Kolbe AB, et al. (2021) Prevention of allergic-like reactions at repeat CT: steroid pretreatment versus contrast material substitution. Radiology 301: 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210490 ![]() |
[78] |
Park HJ, Park JW, Yang MS, et al. (2017) Re-exposure to low osmolar iodinated contrast media in patients with prior moderate-to-severe hypersensitivity reactions: A multicentre retrospective cohort study. Eur Radiol 27: 2886-2893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4682-y ![]() |
[79] |
Abe S, Fukuda H, Tobe K, et al. (2016) Protective effect against repeat adverse reactions to iodinated contrast medium: Premedication vs. changing the contrast medium. Eur Radiol 26: 2148-2154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4028-1 ![]() |
[80] |
Ahn YH, Kang DY, Park SB, et al. (2022) Allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents: An 8-year cohort study of 154 539 patients. Radiology 303: 329-336. Epub 20220222. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.210545 ![]() |
[81] |
Ryoo CH, Choi YH, Cheon JE, et al. (2019) Preventive effect of changing contrast media in patients with a prior mild immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based contrast agent. Invest Radiol 54: 633-637. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000573 ![]() |
[82] |
Tramèr MR, von Elm E, Loubeyre P, et al. (2006) Pharmacological prevention of serious anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media: systematic review. BMJ 333: 675. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38905.634132.AE ![]() |
[83] |
Freed KS, Leder RA, Alexander C, et al. (2001) Breakthrough adverse reactions to low-osmolar contrast media after steroid premedication. Am J Roentgenol 176: 1389-1392. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.6.1761389 ![]() |
[84] |
Davenport MS, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, et al. (2009) Repeat contrast medium reactions in premedicated patients: frequency and severity. Radiology 253: 372-379. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2532090465 ![]() |
[85] |
Lasser EC, Berry CC, Mishkin MM, et al. (1994) Pretreatment with corticosteroids to prevent adverse reactions to nonionic contrast media. Am J Roentgenol 162: 523-526. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.162.3.8109489 ![]() |
[86] |
Kim JH, Choi SI, Lee YJ, et al. (2021) Pharmacological prevention of delayed hypersensitivity reactions caused by iodinated contrast media. World Allergy Organ J 14: 100561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100561 ![]() |
[87] |
Lasser EC, Berry CC, Talner LB, et al. (1987) Pretreatment with corticosteroids to alleviate reactions to intravenous contrast material. N Engl J Med 317: 845-849. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198710013171401 ![]() |
[88] |
Cha MJ, Kang DY, Lee W, et al. (2019) Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: A multicenter study of 196 081 patients. Radiology 293: 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190485 ![]() |
[89] |
Greenberger PA, Patterson R (2019) The prevention of immediate generalized reactions to radiocontrast media in high-risk patients. J Allergy Clin Immun 87: 867-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-6749(91)90135-B ![]() |
[90] |
Uppal S, DeCicco AE, Intini A, et al. (2018) Rapid desensitization to overcome contrast allergy prior to urgent coronary angiography. Int Heart J 59: 622-625. https://doi.org/10.1536/ihj.17-395 ![]() |
[91] | Khan S, Kamani A, Strauss BH, et al. (2020) Successful coronary angiography following rapid intravenous desensitization for refractory contrast allergy. Can J Cardiol 36: 1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.02.097 |
[92] |
Jakubovic BD, Castells M (2021) Allergy evaluation and desensitization standards for radiocontrast media. Can J Cardiol 37: 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.05.040 ![]() |
[93] |
Ang WX, Church AM, Kulis M, et al. (2016) Mast cell desensitization inhibits calcium flux and aberrantly remodels actin. J Clin Invest 126: 4103-4118. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI87492 ![]() |
1. | Yujing Zhang, Jiancheng Zhang, Shiying Yuan, Huaqing Shu, Contrast-induced encephalopathy and permanent neurological deficit following cerebral angiography: A case report and review of the literature, 2023, 16, 1662-5102, 10.3389/fncel.2022.1070357 | |
2. | Kevin Pierre, Adam G. Haneberg, Sean Kwak, Keith R. Peters, Bruno Hochhegger, Thiparom Sananmuang, Padcha Tunlayadechanont, Patrick J. Tighe, Anthony Mancuso, Reza Forghani, Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Radiology Roundtrip: Process Streamlining, Workflow Optimization, and Beyond, 2023, 0037198X, 10.1053/j.ro.2023.02.003 |