Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;333:663-664 (30 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.38981.652118.DE
Routine prophylaxis is not supported by evidence
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Acute life threatening reactions to intravascular x ray contrast enhancing agents are often labelled "anaphylactoid" because they may have some or all the features of anaphylaxissuch as bronchospasm, airway obstruction, angio-oedema, or cardiovascular collapsebut are not truly anaphylactic. They are usually seen after direct intravascular administration but can also occur after intracavitary administration. Whether such reactions can be prevented is a subject of much debate among radiologists: in this week's BMJ a systematic review by Tramèr and colleagues finds little evidence to support the use of drugs to prevent serious reactions to contrast media.1
Iodinated contrast media can be categorised into ionic and non-ionic types. The main difference is that ionic media break down into charged particles when entering a solution such as blood. Since the introduction of non-ionic agents, which are now used almost exclusively in the United Kingdom,w1 adverse reactions have become less common. Two large studies
Peter Dawson, professor
Department of Imaging, UCL Hospitals, London NW1 2BU
(peter.dawson@uclh.nhs.uk)
Read all Rapid Responses