Implementing HCFA guidelines on appropriate use of nonionic contrast agents for diagnostic arteriography: Effects on complication rates and management costs

Academic Radiology

Volumn 5, Issue 9 SUPPL., 1998, Pages

  Hartnell, G G ^a   Gates, J ^a   Underhill, J ^a  

^a BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IONIC CONTRAST MEDIUM; NONIONIC CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ARTERIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTRAST RADIOGRAPHY; DRUG HYPERSENSITIVITY; DRUG SAFETY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR;

EID: 0031722594     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(98)80355-3     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (10)

1. Kinnison ML Powe NR Steinberg EP Results of randomized controlled trials of low- versus high osmolality contrast media Radiology 170 1989 381 389
2. Hirshfield JW Low osmolality contrast agents: who needs them? N Engl J Med 326 1992 482 484
3. 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 175 1990 621 628
4. Palmer FJ The RACR survey of intravenous contrast media reactions final report Australas Radiol 32 1988 426 428
5. American College of Cardiologists Cardiovascular Imaging Committee ACC position statement: use of nonionic or low osmolar contrast agents in cardiovascular procedures J Am Coll Cardiol 21 1993 269 273
6. Federal Register 1991 50559 59557
7. American College of Radiology and Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology ACR standard for diagnostic arteriography in adults 1996 American College of Radiology New York, NY 79 88
8. Powe NP Davidoff AJ Moore RD Net costs from three perspectives of using low versus high osmolality contrast medium in diagnostic angiocardiography J Am Coll Cardiol 21 1993 17801 17809
9. Barrett BJ Parfrey PS Vavasour HM O'Dea F Kent G Stone E Comparison of nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents with ionic, high-osmolality agents during cardiac catheterization N Engl J Med 326 1992 431 436
10. Michalson A Franken EA Smith W Cost effectiveness and safety of selective use of low-osmolality contrast media Acad Radiol 1 1994 59 62