Purpose: In excess of 100 million procedures using iodinated radio-contrast media are conducted each year. There is a common misunderstanding regarding the links between allergy to iodinated substances and the risk of allergic reaction to intravenous iodinated contrast agents. These perceived risks are managed via administration of corticosteroids or avoidance of iodinated contrast altogether.
Methods: An extensive review of published literature on scientific databases and international guidelines was conducted in order to inform the research question. A questionnaire was formulated and distributed to hospital doctors in four tertiary centres. Within this questionnaire, hospital doctors were presented with six different scenarios of bona fide allergy to iodinated substances (e.g. shellfish) and asked to select the treatment response option which they deemed to be the most suitable from a choice of three (standard contrast scan/delay scan with pre-medication/change to non-contrast scan).
Results: Eighty-seven questionnaire responses were received. Contrast (standard protocol) was the most appropriate regimen in the setting of all the listed allergies. This was identified correctly by 76%, 69%, 44%, 32%, 18% and 14% for kiwi, fish, poly-food, shellfish, betadine and tincture of iodine allergies, respectively.
Conclusions: There is a lack of understanding amongst local junior medical staff regarding administration of iodinated contrast media to patients with a history of allergy to iodinated substances. These misconceptions may potentiate the unnecessary usage of pre-medication and ordering of non-contrast scans in the setting of a gold-standard enhanced scan. Findings from this study suggest that there is a need for future education efforts targeted during the basic specialty training stage.
Keywords: Allergy; Contrast-enhanced scans; Iodinated contrast media; Radiology; Shellfish; Shellfish allergy.
© 2021. American Society of Emergency Radiology.