Search

Objective: To determine whether updated guidance by the ACR in 2017 advocating use of intravenous (IV) premedication in emergency department (ED) patients and inpatients with reported iodinated contrast allergy was associated with a change in clinical practice., Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed via e-mail in October 2020 to practicing radiologist members of the ACR interrogating use of corticosteroid premedication for two clinical vignettes: an indicated routine (perform within 24 hours) inpatient contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and an indicated urgent (perform within 6 hours) ED CE-CT. In both scenarios, the patient had a prior moderate hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast media. Clinical management was evaluated. Data were compared to historical controls from 2009., Results: The response rate was 11% (724 of 6,616). For the inpatient scenario, 72% (518 of 724) would use corticosteroid premedication with CE-CT, and 28% (200 of 724) would perform noncontrast CT. For the ED scenario, 67% (487 of 724) would use corticosteroid premedication with CE-CT, and 30% (217 of 724) would perform noncontrast CT. Oral premedication (85%, 439 of 518) was preferred for routine inpatients, and rapid IV premedication (89%, 433 of 487) was preferred for urgent ED patients. Of those who provided rapid IV dosing data in the ED, two doses of corticosteroids were used by 53% (216 of 410) and one dose was used by 45% (185 of 410), with academic radiologists more likely than private or hybrid practice radiologists to administer two doses (74% [74 of 100] versus 48% [151 of 312], P < .001, odds ratio, 3.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-5.00). Rapid IV premedication was more commonly used in 2020 than in 2009 (60% [433 of 724] versus 29% [20 of 69], P < .001, odds ratio, 3.65; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-6.26). Antihistamine use was common in both inpatient (93%, 480 of 518) and ED settings (92%, 447 of 487). Only 32% (229 of 721) of radiologists practiced in accordance with ACR guidelines, suggesting no need for routine premedication before CE-CT in patients with prior severe hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based contrast media. Nonetheless, most (93%, 670 of 724) said the ACR Manual on Contrast Media was a major determinant of their practice., Conclusions: Use of rapid IV premedication in urgent settings has increased since 2009, following updated ACR guidelines, but there is disagreement over whether one or two corticosteroid doses is required. Despite reported high reliance on ACR guidelines, deviations from those guidelines remain common. In general, when ACR guidelines were not followed, it was in a risk-averse direction., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this work was to prioritize in a quaternary academic environment necessary elements of a replacement PACS., Methods: This quality improvement work was conducted at one academic medical center and was "not regulated" by the institutional review board. Three workgroups (10-15 members each) with unique resident, fellow, and attending radiologists; IT specialists; and departmental leaders convened in 2018 to prioritize elements for a PACS replacement project, including integrated IT tools. Each workgroup met two or three times and represented one of three missions (clinical, research, and education). Six elements assigned the highest priority were distilled from each workgroup. The resulting 18 elements were condensed into survey format and distributed to all department residents, fellows, and faculty members for 5-point Likert-type prioritization stratified by mission. Data were collected over 2 weeks., Results: The survey response rate was 37% (71 of 192; 17 of 44 residents, 3 of 27 fellows, and 51 of 121 faculty members). Self-reported work effort was 63 ± 26% clinical, 14 ± 11% education, 15 ± 21% research, and 8 ± 14% administration. Aggregate priority ratings across all domains were highest for "stable system with predictable behavior" (mean, 4.51), "minimizes repetitive non-value-added work" (mean, 4.40), "interoperability" (mean, 4.12), and "near-instantaneous load times" (mean, 4.07). Clinical-specific ratings for these elements were even higher (means, 4.85-4.90). The lowest aggregate scores were mobile device compatibility (mean, 3.03), connectivity to nonaffiliated sites (mean, 3.01), and integrated instant messaging (mean, 2.87)., Conclusions: The department prioritized a stable and interoperable system that minimized non-value-added work. In other words, participants wanted a functioning PACS. PACS vendors should prioritize a reliable experience over niche add-ons., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine whether resident abdominopelvic CT reports considered prospectively concordant with the final interpretation are also considered concordant by other blinded specialists and abdominal radiologists., Methods: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, 119 randomly selected urgent abdominopelvic CT examinations with a resident preliminary report deemed prospectively "concordant" by the signing faculty were identified. Nine blinded specialists from Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Abdominal Radiology reviewed the preliminary and final reports and scored the preliminary report with respect to urgent findings as follows: 1.) concordant; 2.) discordant with minor differences; 3.) discordant with major differences that do not alter patient management; or 4.) discordant with major differences that do alter patient management. Predicted management resulting from scores of 4 was recorded. Consensus was defined as majority agreement within a specialty. Consensus major discrepancy rates (ie, scores 3 or 4) were compared to the original major discrepancy rate of 0% (0/119) using the McNemar test., Results: Consensus scores of 4 were assigned in 18% (21/119, P < .001, Emergency Medicine), 5% (6/119, P = .03, Internal Medicine), and 13% (16/119, P < .001, Abdominal Radiology) of examinations. Consensus scores of 3 or 4 were assigned in 31% (37/119, P < .001, Emergency Medicine), 14% (17/119, P < .001, Internal Medicine), and 18% (22/119, P < .001, Abdominal Radiology). Predicted management alterations included hospital status (0-4%), medical therapy (1%-4%), imaging (1%-10%), subspecialty consultation (3%-13%), nonsurgical procedure (3%), operation (1%-3%), and other (0-3%)., Conclusions: The historical low major discrepancy rate for urgent findings between resident and faculty radiologists is likely underreported., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess Society of Uroradiology member use of premedication before the intravenous administration of low-osmolality iodinated contrast materials (LOCM) and gadolinium-based contrast materials (GBCM)., Methods: Society of Uroradiology members were invited to complete a Web-based survey concerning the use of premedication. The survey included scenarios concerning intravenous LOCM or GBCM injection in which respondents were asked whether they would recommend premedication or withhold contrast material injection. Results for LOCM questions were compared with those for GBCM questions. Question responses for LOCM were also compared with those from a similar Society of Uroradiology survey published in 1995., Results: Sixty-two of 72 respondents (86%) used standardized premedication regimens. Fifty-nine of 61 described regimens (97%) included oral corticosteroids and 48 (79%) antihistamines. Twenty of 69 respondents (29%) had separate urgent premedication regimens. There was general agreement concerning premedication use; however, responses were inconsistent in patients with severe food or medication allergies, severe symptomatic asthma, or prior mild urticarial reactions. More respondents recommended premedication before LOCM than GBCM administration. More respondents recommended premedication or avoidance of contrast material injection in patients with prior contrast reactions in the current study compared with the 1995 study., Conclusions: There is frequent agreement among uroradiologists concerning the use of corticosteroid prophylaxis, but there is inconsistency in some clinical situations. The threshold for premedication is often lower for LOCM than GBCM. Since 1995, recommendations for use of premedication have become more widespread., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study was undertaken to evaluate hemodialysis-associated subclavian vein stenosis (SVS) and to clarify treatment of this condition. Forty-seven patients underwent upper arm venography to evaluate fistula dysfunction. Subclavian vein stenosis was documented in 12. Eleven of 12 had elevated venous dialysis pressure (196 +/- 8.9 mm Hg), and six had arm edema. All 12 had previously undergone subclavian cannulation on the side of the fistula. Thirty-five patients showed no evidence of subclavian vein stenosis. Twelve of these 35 patients (mean venous dialysis pressure 113 +/- 2.3 mm Hg) had undergone previous subclavian cannulation on the side of the fistula. The mean age of the fistula at the time of venogram in patients with subclavian vein stenosis was 17.0 months versus 5.8 months in patients with ipsilateral subclavian cannulation without subclavian vein stenosis. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) was performed on 11 of 12 patients with SVS lowering venous dialysis pressure and restoring patency to the fistula in 100%. Lesions recurred in two of 11 patients and were successfully retreated with PTA. We conclude that SVS is a common dialysis problem that is amenable to treatment with PTA. Elevated venous dialysis pressures are a sensitive indicator of this condition.