估计非离子型低渗透性造影剂的急性不良反应率:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-11 DOI:10.1007/s00330-025-11526-z
Yuguo Wei, Xinchao Jiang, Mark Hibberd, Alexis Sampedro, Jeannette Rautenbach
{"title":"估计非离子型低渗透性造影剂的急性不良反应率:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yuguo Wei, Xinchao Jiang, Mark Hibberd, Alexis Sampedro, Jeannette Rautenbach","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-11526-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare acute adverse reactions (AAR) rates among non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), examining administration routes and severity-specific impact on AAR rates.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A PubMed and Cochrane Library search identified studies published between January 1989 and March 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies with > 100 adult patients who received intra-arterial or intravenous LOCM (iobitridol, iohexol, iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, and ioversol). Duplicate reports and studies with insufficient information were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment followed PRISMA guidelines and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, including random effects, meta-regression, and sub-group analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After excluding duplicates and non-compliant studies, 32 peer-reviewed articles of initially 6701 identified studies, were included in the final analysis. The pooled overall AAR rate was 0.73%, with ioversol showing the lowest rate (0.34%). From all studies, pooled rates (random effects model) of moderate and severe AARs were 0.10% and 0.014% (p < 0.01), with the lowest rates for iohexol (0.05% and 0.008%, respectively). The highest overall, moderate, and severe AAR rates were seen with iomeprol (1.38%, 0.27%, and 0.040%, respectively). LOCM type (p < 0.0001), study design (p = 0.0001), and injection route (p = 0.034) significantly influenced the overall AAR rate. In contrast, the study center number (p = 0.698), the country where the study was performed (p = 0.808), and the type of reaction (hypersensitivity vs hypersensitivity plus physiological reactions; p = 0.178) did not.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AAR rates were low but indicated significant differences between LOCM; iohexol and ioversol demonstrated the overall most favorable safety profiles.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Knowledge about AAR is crucial for patient safety, but comprehensive data on the safety profiles of non-ionic LOCM is lacking. Findings Ioversol showed the lowest overall AAR rate; iohexol demonstrated the lowest moderate/severe AAR. Study design, LOCM type, and injection route influenced AAR rates. Clinical relevance This meta-analysis provides evidence for differences in non-ionic LOCM safety profiles, particularly for moderate and severe AARs. These can guide clinicians in selecting contrast agents, aiming to further reduce risks, and improve patient safety in diagnostic imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"6240-6249"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12417258/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating the rate of acute adverse reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yuguo Wei, Xinchao Jiang, Mark Hibberd, Alexis Sampedro, Jeannette Rautenbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-025-11526-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare acute adverse reactions (AAR) rates among non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), examining administration routes and severity-specific impact on AAR rates.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A PubMed and Cochrane Library search identified studies published between January 1989 and March 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies with > 100 adult patients who received intra-arterial or intravenous LOCM (iobitridol, iohexol, iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, and ioversol). Duplicate reports and studies with insufficient information were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment followed PRISMA guidelines and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, including random effects, meta-regression, and sub-group analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After excluding duplicates and non-compliant studies, 32 peer-reviewed articles of initially 6701 identified studies, were included in the final analysis. The pooled overall AAR rate was 0.73%, with ioversol showing the lowest rate (0.34%). From all studies, pooled rates (random effects model) of moderate and severe AARs were 0.10% and 0.014% (p < 0.01), with the lowest rates for iohexol (0.05% and 0.008%, respectively). The highest overall, moderate, and severe AAR rates were seen with iomeprol (1.38%, 0.27%, and 0.040%, respectively). LOCM type (p < 0.0001), study design (p = 0.0001), and injection route (p = 0.034) significantly influenced the overall AAR rate. In contrast, the study center number (p = 0.698), the country where the study was performed (p = 0.808), and the type of reaction (hypersensitivity vs hypersensitivity plus physiological reactions; p = 0.178) did not.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AAR rates were low but indicated significant differences between LOCM; iohexol and ioversol demonstrated the overall most favorable safety profiles.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Knowledge about AAR is crucial for patient safety, but comprehensive data on the safety profiles of non-ionic LOCM is lacking. Findings Ioversol showed the lowest overall AAR rate; iohexol demonstrated the lowest moderate/severe AAR. Study design, LOCM type, and injection route influenced AAR rates. Clinical relevance This meta-analysis provides evidence for differences in non-ionic LOCM safety profiles, particularly for moderate and severe AARs. These can guide clinicians in selecting contrast agents, aiming to further reduce risks, and improve patient safety in diagnostic imaging.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"6240-6249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12417258/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11526-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11526-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估和比较非离子型低渗透造影剂(LOCM)的急性不良反应(AAR)率,检查给药途径和严重特异性对AAR率的影响。材料和方法:PubMed和Cochrane图书馆检索了1989年1月至2024年3月间发表的研究。纳入标准集中于接受动脉或静脉LOCM(碘比醇和碘己醇、异奥美洛尔、iopamidol、ioproide和ioversol)治疗的100例成人患者。排除了重复的报告和信息不足的研究。数据提取和质量评估遵循PRISMA指南和纽卡斯尔渥太华量表。采用R软件进行统计学分析,包括随机效应、meta回归和亚组分析。结果:在排除重复研究和不合规研究后,最初6701项研究的32篇同行评议文章被纳入最终分析。综合总体AAR率为0.73%,ioversol最低,为0.34%。从所有研究中,中度和重度AAR的合并发生率(随机效应模型)分别为0.10%和0.014% (p)。结论:AAR发生率低,但在LOCM之间存在显著差异;Iohexol和ioversol显示出总体上最有利的安全性。关于AAR的知识对患者安全至关重要,但缺乏关于非离子型LOCM安全性概况的全面数据。结果:Ioversol总体AAR率最低;碘己醇表现出最低的中度/重度AAR。研究设计、LOCM类型和注入途径影响AAR速率。该荟萃分析提供了非离子LOCM安全性差异的证据,特别是对于中度和重度AARs。这些可以指导临床医生选择造影剂,旨在进一步降低风险,提高患者在诊断成像中的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Estimating the rate of acute adverse reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Estimating the rate of acute adverse reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Estimating the rate of acute adverse reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Estimating the rate of acute adverse reactions to non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare acute adverse reactions (AAR) rates among non-ionic low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), examining administration routes and severity-specific impact on AAR rates.

Materials and methods: A PubMed and Cochrane Library search identified studies published between January 1989 and March 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies with > 100 adult patients who received intra-arterial or intravenous LOCM (iobitridol, iohexol, iomeprol, iopamidol, iopromide, and ioversol). Duplicate reports and studies with insufficient information were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment followed PRISMA guidelines and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, including random effects, meta-regression, and sub-group analysis.

Results: After excluding duplicates and non-compliant studies, 32 peer-reviewed articles of initially 6701 identified studies, were included in the final analysis. The pooled overall AAR rate was 0.73%, with ioversol showing the lowest rate (0.34%). From all studies, pooled rates (random effects model) of moderate and severe AARs were 0.10% and 0.014% (p < 0.01), with the lowest rates for iohexol (0.05% and 0.008%, respectively). The highest overall, moderate, and severe AAR rates were seen with iomeprol (1.38%, 0.27%, and 0.040%, respectively). LOCM type (p < 0.0001), study design (p = 0.0001), and injection route (p = 0.034) significantly influenced the overall AAR rate. In contrast, the study center number (p = 0.698), the country where the study was performed (p = 0.808), and the type of reaction (hypersensitivity vs hypersensitivity plus physiological reactions; p = 0.178) did not.

Conclusion: AAR rates were low but indicated significant differences between LOCM; iohexol and ioversol demonstrated the overall most favorable safety profiles.

Key points: Question Knowledge about AAR is crucial for patient safety, but comprehensive data on the safety profiles of non-ionic LOCM is lacking. Findings Ioversol showed the lowest overall AAR rate; iohexol demonstrated the lowest moderate/severe AAR. Study design, LOCM type, and injection route influenced AAR rates. Clinical relevance This meta-analysis provides evidence for differences in non-ionic LOCM safety profiles, particularly for moderate and severe AARs. These can guide clinicians in selecting contrast agents, aiming to further reduce risks, and improve patient safety in diagnostic imaging.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信