The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trends in Adverse Events After IV Administration of Contrast Media
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Data collected from 1985 to 1999 on adverse events after the IV administration of contrast media were evaluated to identify trends. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data collected on 391 adverse events after 90,473 administrations of iodinated contrast media and 19 events after 28,340 administrations of gadolinium were evaluated. Reactions were graded as mild, moderate, or severe. Data were also collected regarding contrast extravasation. RESULTS: When only ionic iodinated contrast material was used, the adverse reaction rate was 6-8%. With the selective use of contrast material, the adverse reaction rate was 0.6% and 0.7%, respectively, for ionic and nonionic agents. The rate decreased to 0.2% with the universal use of nonionic agents. More than 90% of adverse reactions were allergic-like. Seven severe reactions (0.05%) and no deaths occurred in the ionic group. During the selective use period, one death occurred in the nonionic group. No severe reactions or deaths occurred during the first 5 years of universal nonionic use. Since then, 10 severe reactions (0.02%) and one death have occurred. Seven reactions occurred in patients after helical CT angiography. The extravasation rate for iodinated contrast material has remained constant at 0.3-0.4% annually. The adverse reaction rate to gadolinium contrast material was 0.06%. CONCLUSION: Mild and moderate adverse events are more common with ionic contrast material than with nonionic. Most reactions are allergic-like. Severe reactions are seen equally with ionic and nonionic contrast material but differ in type. The reactions were allergic-like in the ionic group but were predominantly attributable to cardiopulmonary decompensation in the nonionic group. Helical CT angiography may play a role in reactions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Microbubble-enhanced US in Body Imaging: What Role?
Wilson, S. R., & Burns, P. N. (2010) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.10091210 · Cited by 470
Epidemiology of life-threatening and lethal anaphylaxis: a review
Moneret‐Vautrin, D. A., Morisset, M., Flabbee, J., Beaudouin, E., & Kanny, G. (2005) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00785.x · Cited by 386
Dillman, J. R., Ellis, J. H., Cohan, R. H., Strouse, P. J., & Jan, S. C. (2007) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.07.2554 · Cited by 303
Clinical Safety and Diagnostic Value of the Gadolinium Chelate Gadoterate Meglumine (Gd-DOTA)
Herborn, C. U., Honold, E., Wolf, M., Kemper, J., Kinner, S., Adam, G., & Barkhausen, J. (2007) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000248893.01067.e5 · Cited by 126
Cardiac MR Imaging Assessment Following Tetralogy of Fallot Repair
Norton, K. I., Tong, C., Glass, R. B. J., & Nielsen, J. C. (2006) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.261055064 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Cochran, S. T., Bomyea, K., & Sayre, J. W.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1385-1388
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W2132067973
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trends in Adverse Events After IV Administration of Contrast Media. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.176.6.1761385
- The paper
- Cochran, S. T., Bomyea, K., & Sayre, J. W. (2001). Trends in Adverse Events After IV Administration of Contrast Media. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.6.1761385
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.