Selective use of radiographic low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s

Radiology

Volumn 200, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 297-311

  Ellis, James H ^a   Cohan, Richard H ^a   Sonnad, Seema S ^a   Cohan, Nina Shafiroff ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Contrast media; Cost effectiveness; Economics, medical; Informed consent; Medicolegal problems; Radiology and radiologists, departmental management; Radiology and radiologists, socioeconomic issues; State of art reviews

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; MORTALITY; OSMOLALITY; PATIENT SELECTION; PREMEDICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SOCIOECONOMICS;

EID: 0029890835     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.200.2.8685315     Document Type: Review

References (178)

1. Grainger RG. The clinical and financial implications of the low-osmolar radiological contrast media. Clin Radiol 1984; 35:251-252.
2. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS, McDonald JR, Hefferton DM, Reddy ER, McManamon PJ. Nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast material for intravenous use in patients perceived to be at high risk: randomized trial. Radiology 1992; 183:105-110.
3. Steinberg EP, Anderson GF, Powe NR, et al. Use of low-osmolality contrast media in a price-sensitive environment. AJR 1988; 151:271-274.
4. Wolf GL, Arenson RL, Cross AP. A prospective trial of ionic vs nonionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects. AJR 1989; 152:939-944.
5. Loughran CF. Clinical intravenous urography: comparative trial of ioxaglate and iopamidol. Radiology 1986; 161:455-458.
6. Spataro RF, Katzberg RW, Fischer HW, McMannis MJ. High-dose clinical urography with the low-osmolality contrast agent Hexabrix: comparison with a conventional contrast agent. Radiology 1987; 162:9-14.
7. Cochran ST, Ballard JW, Katzberg RW, et al. Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography: a double-blind clinical study. AJR 1988; 151:523-527.
8. Jacobsson BF, Jorulf H, Kalantar MS, Narasimham DL. Nonionic versus ionic contrast media in intravenous urography: clinical trial in 1,000 consecutive patients. Radiology 1988; 167:601-605.
9. Thomsen HS, Vestergaard A, Dorph S. Quality of urography and renal clearance of ionic and nonionic contrast media. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:40-44.
10. Gavant ML, Siegle RL. Iodixanol in excretory urography: initial clinical experience with a nonionic, dimeric (ratio 6:1) contrast medium, Radiology 1992; 183:515-518.
11. Nelson RC, Moyers JH, Chezmar JL, et al. Hepatic dynamic sequential CT: section enhancement profiles with a bolus of ionic and nonionic contrast agents. Radiology 1991; 178:499-502.
12. Bernardino ME, Fishman EK, Jeffrey RB Jr, Brown PC. Comparison of iohexol 300 and diatrizoate meglumine 60 for body CT: image quality, adverse reactions, and aborted/repeated examinations. AJR 1992; 158:665-667.
13. Chambers TP, Baron RL, Lush RM, Dodd GD III, Miller WJ. Hepatic CT enhancement: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents in the same patients. Radiology 1994; 190:721-725.
14. Bree RL, Parisky YR, Bernardino ME, Costello P, Leder R, Brown PC. Cost-effective use of low-osmolality contrast media for CT of the liver: evaluation of liver enhancement provided by various doses of iohexol. AJR 1994; 163:579-583.
15. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990; 175:621-628.
16. Katayama H. Survey of safety of clinical contrast media. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:S7-S10.
17. Palmer FJ. The RACR survey of intravenous contrast media reactions final report. Australas Radiol 1988; 32:426-428.
18. Steinberg EP, Moore RD, Powe NR, et al. Safety and cost effectiveness of high-osmolality as compared with low-osmolality contrast material in patients undergoing cardiac angiography. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:425-430.
19. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS, Vavasour HM, O'Dea F, Kent G, Stone E. A comparison of nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents with ionic, high-osmolality agents during cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:431-436.
20. Hill JA, Winniford M, Cohen MB, et al. Multicenter trial of ionic versus nonionic contrast media for cardiac angiography. Am J Cardiol 1993; 72:770-775.
21. Cohen MD, Herman E, Herron D, White SJ, Smith JA. Comparison of intravenous contrast agents for CT studies in children. Acta Radiol 1992; 33:592-595.
22. Palmer J. Morbidity and mortality with intravenous contrast media: ionic and nonionic. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:S18-S19.
23. Caro JJ, Trindade E, McGregor M. The risks of death and of severe nonfatal reactions with high- vs low-osmolality contrast media: a meta-analysis. AJR 1991; 156:825-832.
24. Lawrence V, Matthai W, Hartmaier S. Comparative safety of high-osmolality and low-osmolality radiographic contrast agents: report of a multidisciplinary working group. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:2-28.
25. Thomsen HS, Dorph S. High-osmolar and low-osmolar contrast media: an update on frequency of adverse drug reactions. Acta Radiol 1993; 34:205-209.
26. Andrew E, Haider T. Incidence of roentgen contrast medium reactions after intravenous injection in pre-registration trials and post-marketing surveillances. Acta Radiol 1993; 34:210-213.
27. Gerstman BB. Epidemiologic critique of the report on adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic media by the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1991; 178:787-790.
28. Bettmann MA. Ionic versus nonionic contrast agents for intravenous use: are all the answers in? Radiology 1990; 175:616-618.
29. Powe NR, Kinnison ML, Steinberg EP. Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of contrast media. Radiology 1989; 170:377-380.
30. Powe NR, Kinnison ML, Steinberg EP. Controlled trials of radiologic contrast media: issues in quality assessment and synthesis. Radiology 1991; 179:22-23.
31. Siegle RL, Halvorsen RA, Dillon J, Gavant ML, Halpern E. The use of iohexol in patients with previous reactions to ionic contrast material: a multicenter clinical trial. Invest Radiol 1991; 26:411-416.
32. Stacul F, Carraro M, Magnaldi S, Faccini L, Guarnieri G, Dalla Palma L. Contrast agent nephrotoxicity: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents. AJR 1987; 149:1287-1289.
33. Gomes AS, Lois JF, Baker JD, McGlade CT, Bunnell DH, Hartzman S. Acute renal dysfunction in high-risk patients after angiography: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology 1989; 170:65-68.
34. Schwab SJ, Hlatky MA, Pieper KS, et al. Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of a nonionic and an ionic radiographic contrast agent. N Engl J Med 1989; 320:149-153.
35. Harris KG, Smith TP, Cragg AH, Lemke JH. Nephrotoxicity from contrast material in renal insufficiency: ionic versus nonionic agents. Radiology 1991; 179:849-852.
36. Lautin EM, Freeman NJ, Schoenfeld AH, et al. Radiocontrast-associated renal dysfunction: a comparison of lower-osmolality and conventional high-osmolality contrast media. AJR 1991; 157:59-65.
37. Moore RD, Steinberg EP, Powe NR, et al. Nephrotoxicity of high-osmolality versus low-osmolality contrast media: randomized clinical trial. Radiology 1992; 182:649-655.
38. Katholi RE, Taylor GJ, Woods WT, et al. Nephrotoxicity of nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast media: a prospective double-blind randomized comparison in human beings. Radiology 1993; 186:183-187.
39. Bettmann MA. The evaluation of contrast-related renal failure. AJR 1991; 157:66-68.
40. Barrett BJ, Carlisle EJ. Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high- and low-osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology 1993; 188:171-178.
41. Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L, et al. Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. Kidney Int 1995; 47:254-261.
42. Lautin EM, Freeman NJ, Schoenfeld AH, et al. Radiocontrast-associated renal dysfunction: incidence and risk factors. AJR 1991; 157:49-58.
43. Cigarroa RG, Lange RA, Williams RH, Hillis LD. Dosing of contrast material to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with renal disease. Am J Med 1989; 86:649-652.
44. Erley CM, Duda SH, Schlepckow S, et al. Adenosine antagonist theophylline prevents the reduction of glomerular filtration rate after contrast media application. Kidney Int 1994; 45:1425-1431.
45. Katholi RE, Taylor GJ, McCann WP, et al. Nephrotoxicity from contrast media: attenuation with theophylline. Radiology 1995; 195:17-22.
46. Drescher P, Pereira F, Will JA, Madsen PO. Nephrotoxicity from contrast media: attenuation with theophylline (letter). Radiology 1995; 197:547-548.
47. Oldroyd SD, Haylor JL, Morcos SK. Bosentan, an orally active endothelin antagonist: effect on the renal response to contrast media. Radiology 1995; 196:661-665.
48. Cohan RH, Dunnick NR. Intravascular contrast media: adverse reactions. AJR 1987; 149:665-670.
49. Cohan RH, Dunnick NR, Bashore TM. Treatment of reactions to radiographic contrast material. AJR 1988; 151:263-270.
50. Bush WH, Swanson DP. Acute reactions to intravascular contrast media: types, risk factors, recognition, and specific treatment. AJR 1991; 157:1153-1161.
51. Cohan RH, Dunnick NR, Leder RA, Baker ME. Extravasation of nonionic radiologic contrast media: efficacy of conservative treatment. Radiology 1990; 176:65-67.
52. Sistrom CL, Gay SB, Peffley L. Extravasation of iopamidol and iohexol during contrast-enhanced CT: report of 28 cases. Radiology 1991; 180:707-710.
53. Cohan RH, Leder RA, Bolick D, et al. Extravascular extravasation of radiographic contrast media: effects of conventional and low-osmolar agents in the rat thigh. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:504-510.
54. Kim SH, Park JH, Kim YI, Kim CW, Han MC. Experimental tissue damage after subcutaneous injection of water soluble contrast media. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:678-685.
55. Elam EA, Dorr RT, Lagel KE, Pond GD. Cutaneous ulceration due to contrast extravasation: experimental assessment of injury and potential antidotes. Invest Radiol 1991; 26:13-16.
56. Casalini E. Role of low-osmolality contrast media in thromboembolic complications: scanning electron microscopy study. Radiology 1992; 183:741-744.
57. Hardeman MR, Konijnenberg A, Sturk A, Reekers JA. Activation of platelets by low-osmolar contrast media: differential effects of ionic and nonionic agents. Radiology 1994; 192:563-566.
58. Sortland O, Johansen JG, Øksendal AN, Waaler A. Iopentol in urography: a clinical comparison between iopentol and metrizoate including delayed reactions. Acta Radiol 1992; 33:368-373.
59. Yoshikawa H. Late adverse reactions to nonionic contrast media. Radiology 1992; 183:737-740.
60. Beyer-Enke SA, Zeitler E. Late adverse reactions to non-ionic contrast media: a cohort analytic study. Eur Radiol 1993; 3:237-241.
61. Mikkonen R, Kontkanen T, Kivisaari L. Acute and late adverse reactions to low-osmolar contrast media. Acta Radiol 1995; 36:72-76.
62. Berman HL, Delaney V. Iodide mumps due to low-osmolality contrast material. AJR 1992; 159:1099-1100.
63. Donnelly PK, Williams B, Watkin EM. Polyarthropathy: a delayed reaction to low osmolality angiographic contrast medium in patients with end stage renal disease. Eur J Radiol 1993; 17:130-132.
64. Panto PN, Davies P. Delayed reactions to urographic contrast media. Br J Radiol 1986; 59:41-44.
65. Choyke PL, Miller DL, Lotze MT, Whiteis JM, Ebbitt B, Rosenberg SA. Delayed reactions to contrast media after interleukin-2 immunotherapy. Radiology 1992; 183:111-114.
66. Zukiwski AA, David CL, Coan J, Wallace S, Gutterman JU, Mavlight GM. Increased incidence of hypersensitivity to iodine-containing radiographic contrast media after interleukin-2 administration. Cancer 1990; 65:1521-1524.
67. Fishman JE, Aberle DR, Moldawer NP, Belldegrun A, Figlin RA. Atypical contrast reactions associated with systemic interleukin-2 therapy. AJR 1991; 156:833-834.
68. Dachman AH. New contraindication to intravascular iodinated contrast material (letter). Radiology 1995; 197:545.
69. Rotter A. New contraindication to intravascular iodinated contrast material (letter). Radiology 1995; 197:545-546.
70. Hirshfeld JW Jr. Low-osmolality contrast agents: who needs them? N Engl J Med 1992; 326:482-484.
71. Grainger RG. Optimum utilisation of intravascular radiological contrast media. Eur Radiol 1992; 2:121-123.
72. Evens RG. Low-osmolality contrast media: good news or bad? Radiology 1988; 169:277-278.
73. Thomsen HS. Universal use of low-osmolar contrast media: a European perspective. Acad Radiol 1994; 1:295-297.
74. Jacobson PD, Rosenquist CJ. The introduction of low-osmolar contrast agents in radiology: medical, economic, legal, and public policy issues. JAMA 1988; 260:1586-1592.
75. Spring DB, Quesenberry CP Jr. Costs of low-osmolar contrast media (letter). JAMA 1991; 266:1081-1082.
76. Henry DA, Evans DB, Robertson J. The safety and cost-effectiveness of low osmolar contrast media: can economic analysis determine the real worth of a new technology? Med J Aust 1991; 154:766-772.
77. Caro JJ, Trindade E, McGregor M. The cost-effectiveness of replacing high-osmolality with low-osmolality contrast media. AJR 1992; 159:869-874.
78. Powe NR. Low- versus high-osmolality contrast media for intravenous use: a health care luxury or necessity? Radiology 1992; 183:21-22.
79. Fischer HW, Spataro RF, Rosenberg PM. Medical and economic considerations in using a new contrast medium. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146:1717-1721.
80. Michalson A, Franken EA Jr, Smith W. Cost-effectiveness and safety of selective use of low-osmolality contrast media. Acad Radiol 1994; 1:59-62.
81. Powe NR, Moore RD, Steinberg EP. Adverse reactions to contrast media: factors that determine the cost of treatment. AJR 1993; 161:1089-1095.
82. Millward SF. Cost of preventing adverse reactions to low-osmolar contrast agents (letter). Radiology 1994; 191:871.
83. Levin DC. Cost of preventing adverse reactions to low-osmolar contrast agents (response). Radiology 1994; 191:871-872.
84. Appel LJ, Steinberg EP, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Dwyer SA, Faden RR. Risk reduction from low-osmolality contrast media: what do patients think it is worth? Med Care 1990; 28:324-337.
85. Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on iodinated contrast media. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1991.
86. Ritchie JL, Nissen SE, Douglas JS Jr, et al. Use of nonionic or low osmolar contrast agents in cardiovascular procedures. American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 21:269-273.
87. Bettmann MA. Guidelines for use of low-osmolality contrast agents. Radiology 1989; 172:901-903.
88. UHC Technology Advancement Center. Technology assessment: low-osmolality contrast media. Oak Brook, III: University Hospital Consortium, 1993; 49-69.
89. Bettmann MA, Geller SC, McClennan B, Dunnick NR. Current use of low-osmolality contrast agents: results of a survey. AJR 1989; 153:1079-1089.
90. Cohen MD, Smith JA. Intravenous use of ionic and nonionic contrast agents in children. Radiology 1994; 191;793-794.
91. Reuter SR. The use of conventional vs low-osmolar contrast agents: a legal analysis. AJR 1988; 151:529-531.
92. Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Dunnick NR. Use of low-osmolar agents and premedication to reduce the frequency of adverse reactions to contrast media: a survey of the Society of Uroradiology. Radiology 1995; 194:357-364.
93. Debatin JF, Cohan RH, Leder RA, Zakrzewski CB, Dunnick NR. Selective use of low-osmolar contrast media. Invest Radiol 1991; 26:17-21.
94. Hopper KD, Lambe H, Matthews YL. Current usage of nonionic contrast. Urol Radiol 1992; 14:218-220.
95. Redelmeier DA, Tversky A. Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1162-1164.
96. Glass RM. The patient-physician relationship. JAMA 1996; 275:147-148.
97. Levin DC, Gardiner GA, Karasick S, et al. Cost containment in the use of low-osmolar contrast agents: effect of guidelines, monitoring, and feedback mechanisms. Radiology 1993; 189:753-757.
98. Hunter TB, Dye J, Duval JF. Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents for IV urography and CT: safety and effect on cost. AJR 1994; 163:965-968.
99. Lasser EC, Berry CC, Talner LB, et al. Pretreatment with corticosteroids to alleviate reactions to intravenous contrast material. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:845-849.
100. Lasser EC. Pretreatment with corticosteroids to prevent reactions to IV contrast material: overview and implications. AJR 1988; 150:257-259.
101. Dawson P, Sidhu PS. Is there a role for corticosteroid prophylaxis in patients at increased risk of adverse reactions to intravascular contrast agents? Clin Radiol 1993; 48:225-226.
102. Wolf GL, Silvay-Mandeau O. Adverse reactions to intravenous contrast media in routine clinical practice. Invest Radiol 1990;25:S20-S21.
103. Wolf GL, Mishkin MM, Roux SG, et al. Comparison of the rates of adverse drug reactions: ionic contrast agents, ionic agents combined with steroids, and nonionic agents. Invest Radiol 1991; 26:404-410.
104. Lasser EC, Berry CC, Mishkin MM, Williamson B, Zheutlin N, Silverman JM. Pretreatment with corticosteroids to prevent adverse reactions to nonionic contrast media. AJR 1994; 162:523-526.
105. Greenberger PA, Patterson R. The prevention of immediate generalized reactions to radiocontrast media in high-risk patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1991; 87:867-872.
106. Ackroyd JF. Corticosteroids and allergies to contrast material (letter). N Engl J Med 1988; 318:856.
107. Rose TG Jr. Corticosteroids and allergies to contrast material (letter). N Engl J Med 1988; 318:856.
108. Baudouin CJ, Wilkins RA. Corticosteroids and allergies to contrast material (letter). N Engl J Med 1988; 318:856.
109. Wolf GL. Corticosteroids and allergies to contrast material (letter). N Engl J Med 1988; 318:856.
110. Lasser EC, Berry CC, Talner LB. Corticosteroids and allergies to contrast material (reply). N Engl J Med 1988; 318:856-857.
111. Lasser EC. Corticosteroid prophylaxis in patients at increased risk of adverse reactions to intravascular contrast agents (letter). Clin Radiol 1994; 49:582-583.
112. Doré C, Sidhu PS, Dawson P. Corticosteroid prophylaxis in patients at increased risk of adverse reactions to intravascular contrast agents (reply). Clin Radiol 1994; 49:583-584.
113. Lasser EC, Berry CC. Corticosteroid prophylaxis in patients at increased risk of adverse reactions to intravascular contrast agents (reply). Clin Radiol 1994; 49:584.
114. Doré C, Sidhu PS, Dawson P. Corticosteroid prophylaxis in patients at increased risk of adverse reactions to intravascular contrast agents (letter). Clin Radiol 1995; 50:198-199.
115. Lasser EC. Corticosteroid prophylaxis in patients at increased risk of adverse reactions to intravascular contrast agents (reply). Clin Radiol 1995; 50:199.
116. Manashil GB. Premedication with histamine-1 and histamine-2 blockers to prevent nausea and vomiting when high-osmolar contrast agents are used (abstr). Radiology 1995; 197(P):423.
117. Tress BM, Hellyar AG, Pennington J, et al. Multiple doses of contrast medium from a single container: bacteriological studies. Australas Radiol 1994; 38:115-118.
118. Gavant ML, Ellis JV, Klesges LM. Diagnostic efficacy of excretory urography with low-dose, nonionic contrast media. Radiology 1992; 182:657-660.
119. Kuhn MJ, Baker MR. Optimization of low-osmolality contrast media for cranial CT: a dose comparison of two contrast agents. AJNR 1990; 11:847-849.
120. Singer AA, Tagliabue JR, Paushter DM, Borkowski GP, Einstein DM. Comparison of iohexol-240 versus iohexol-300 in abdominal CT. Gastrointest Radiol 1992; 17:122-124.
121. Costello P, Dupuy DE, Ecker CP, Tello R. Spiral CT of the thorax with reduced volume of contrast material: a comparative study. Radiology 1992; 183:663-666.
122. Bluemke DA, Fishman EK, Anderson JH. Dose requirements for a nonionic contrast agent for spiral computed tomography of the liver in rabbits. Invest Radiol 1994; 29:195-200.
123. Baker ME, Bream C, Leder R, Gulliver D, Paine SS, Dunnick NR. Contrast material for combined abdominal and pelvic CT: can cost be reduced by increasing the concentration and decreasing the volume? AJR 1993; 160:637-641.
124. Haddad MC, Sharif HS, Shaded MS, et al. Renal colic: diagnosis and outcome. Radiology 1992; 184:83-88.
125. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995; 194:789-794.
126. Sommer FG, Jeffrey RB Jr, Rubin GD, et al. Detection of ureteral calculi in patients with suspected renal colic: value of reformatted noncontrast helical CT. AJR 1995; 165:509-513.
127. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR 1996; 166:97-101.
128. Rothpearl A, Frager D, Subramanian A, et al. MR urography: technique and application. Radiology 1995; 194:125-130.
129. Bettmann MA, Holzer JF, Trombly ST. Risk management issues related to the use of contrast agents. Radiology 1990; 175:629-631.
130. Rodwin MA. Strains in the fiduciary metaphor: divided physician loyalties and obligations in a changing health care system. Am J Law Med 1995; 21:241-257.
131. Leaf A. The doctor's dilemma - and society's too. N Engl J Med 1984; 310:718-721.
132. Spring DB, Bettmann MA. Contrast material-related deaths spontaneously reported to the US. Food and Drug Administration 1978-1994: changes with the advent of low-osmolar contrast agents (abstr). Radiology 1995; 197(P):346-347.
133. Black WC. To whom should we give the safer contrast media? (letter). Radiology 1987; 163:831.
134. Wolf GL. Safer, more expensive iodinated contrast agents: how do we decide? Radiology 1986; 159:557-558.
135. Goel V, Deber RB, Detsky AS. Nonionic contrast media: economic analysis and health policy development. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 140:389-395.
136. Lantos J. Informed consent: the whole truth for patients? Cancer 1993; 72(suppl): 2811-2815.
137. Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital, 211 NY 125, 105 NE 92 (NY Ct App 1914).
138. Natanson v Kline, 350 P2d 1093 (Ks Sup Ct 1960).
139. Eisner JM, Casey BJ. Malpractice, informed consent, and the use of low osmolality contrast media. Conn Med 1988; 52:87-91.
140. Canterbury v Spence, 464 F2d 772 (DC Cir 1972).
141. Cunningham v United States, 683 F2d 847 (4th Cir 1982).
142. Leyson v Steuermann, App, 705 P2d 37 (Hi Inter Ct App 1985).
143. Corpus Juris Secundum. Ginnow AO, Nikolic M, eds. Vol 70, Physicians and surgeons, sect 96. St Paul, Minn: West, 1987; 513.
144. Reuter SR. An overview of informed consent for radiologists. AJR 1987; 148:219-227.
145. Scott v Bradford, 606 P2d 554 (Ok Sup Ct 1979).
146. Fla Stat Ann 766.103.
147. Ky Rev Stat 304.40-320.
148. Ga Code Ann 31-9-6.1.
149. Rosoff AJ. Consent to medical and surgical procedures. In: Younger P, Conner C, Cartwright K, et al, eds. Hospital law manual. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen, 1983; 156-162.
150. Hook v Rothstein, 316 SE2d 690 (SC App 1984).
151. Henderson v Milobsky, 595 F2d 654 (DC Cir 1978).
152. Paucher v Iowa Methodist Medical Center, 408 NW2d 355 (la Sup Ct 1987).
153. Cobbs v Grant, 104 Cal Rptr 505,502 P2d 1 (Cal Sup Ct 1972).
154. Cooper v Roberts, 286 A2d 647 (Pa Super Ct 1971).
155. Pratt v University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals, 414 NW2d 399 (Minn Sup Ct 1987).
156. Wu v Spence, 413 Pa Super 352, 605 A2d 395 (1992), app dismissed, 534 Pa 309, 632 A2d 1294 (1993).
157. Jones v Irvin, 602 F Supp 399 (III DC 1985).
158. Martin v Richards, 500 NW2d 691 (Wis Ct App 1993) review granted 505 NW2d 137 (Wis 1993).
159. McGeshick v Choucair, 9 F3d 1229 (7th Cir 1993).
160. Supra, Hospital Law Manual, Consents Update, a.
161. Supra, Martin v Richards, aff'd 531 NW2d 70 (Wis Sup Ct 1995).
162. Taylor v Wilmington Medical Center, 577 F Supp 309 (Del DC 1983), aff'd wlo opinion 780 F2d 1016 (3rd Cir 1985).
163. Lalli AF. Urographic contrast media reactions and anxiety. Radiology 1974; 112:267-271.
164. Lalli AF. Urography, shock reaction, and repeated urography. AJR 1975; 125: 264-268.
165. Lalli AF. Contrast media reactions: data analysis and hypothesis. Radiology 1980; 134:1-12.
166. Lalli AF, Greenstreet R. Reactions to contrast media: testing the CNS hypothesis. Radiology 1981; 138:47-49.
167. Spring DB, Akin JR, Margulis AR. Informed consent for intravenous contrastenhanced radiography: a national survey of practice and opinion. Radiology 1984; 152:609-613.
168. Barloon TJ, Brown RC, Berbaum KS. Current status of adult uroradiology: a survey of members of the Society of Uroradiology. AJR 1990; 154:301-304.
169. Winfield AC, Ford CV, James AE, Heller RM, Lamballe AK. Response of patients to informed consent for excretory urography. Urol Radiol 1986; 8:35-39.
170. Hopper KD, Houts PS, TenHave TR, et al. The effect of informed consent on the level of anxiety in patients given IV contrast material. AJR 1994; 162:531-535.
171. Lambe HA, Hopper KD, Matthews YL. Use of informed consent for ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology 1992; 184:145-148.
172. Bush WH. Informed consent for contrast media. AJR 1989; 152:867-869.
173. Spring DB, Winfield AC, Friedland GW, Shuman WP, Preger L. Written informed consent for IV contrast-enhanced radiography: patients' attitudes and common limitations. AJR 1988; 151:1243-1245.
174. Hopper KD, Tyler HN Jr. Informed consent for intravascular administration of contrast material: how much is enough? Radiology 1989; 171:509-514.
175. Hopper KD, Houts PS, McCauslin MA, Matthews YL, Sefczek RJ. Patients' attitudes toward informed consent for intravenous contrast media. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:362-366.
176. Hopper KD, Matthews YL. Patient choice and nonionic contrast media. Invest Radiol 1993; 28:303-307.
177. Black WC. High-dose MR in the evaluation of brain metastases: will increased detection decrease costs? AJNR 1994; 15:1062-1064.
178. Powe NR. Economic and cost-effectiveness investigations of radiologic practices. Radiology 1994; 192:11-18.