How we do it: shifting MR arthrogram compounding from the fluoroscopy suite to the sterile pharmacy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of shifting arthrogram injectate compounding from the fluoroscopy suite to the main hospital sterile pharmacy on cost, examination delays, and infection rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All arthrograms from the 12 months before (629 in total) and the 12 months after (699 in total) the change in arthrogram preparation procedure were compared to identify differences in examination delays and infection rate. The arthrogram formulation was sent to the Compounder's International Analytical Laboratory for stability testing. Finally, cost per injection analysis was performed to compare fluoroscopy suite with sterile pharmacy compounding. RESULTS: In the 699 arthrograms performed in the 12 months following transfer of arthrogram preparation to the main hospital pharmacy, there were 0 reported examination delays, 0 reported infections, and a 53% decrease in the material cost per arthrogram. There were three recorded instances of fluoroscopy suite preparation of arthrogram injectate due to unexpected add-on patients. Outside stability testing determined that the arthrogram injectate retained at least 90% potency 30 h post-preparation. CONCLUSION: Shifting the compounding of the arthrogram injectate from the fluoroscopy room to the main hospital sterile pharmacy provides a modest cost saving and can be accomplished without examination delays or any increase in infection rate. It brought our practice into compliance with USP797, which is the current guideline for compounding practitioners, by transferring the compounding preparation of the arthrogram injectate from a procedure room to the sterile pharmacy.

Cost-effectiveness of iso- versus low-osmolality contrast media in outpatients with high risk of contrast medium-induced nephropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Contrast media can cause acute renal failure by direct toxic effects on the tubular cells and kidney ischemia. Diabetics and hospitalized patients have a greater risk of developing contrast-induced nephropathy than the general population. OBJECTIVE: The cost effectiveness of iso and low-osmolality contrast media was assessed in high risk outpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis was based on a systematic literature review comparing the nephrotoxic effects of iso- to low-osmolality contrast media. Only direct costs were considered; these were obtained from the official tariff manual. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, efficiency curves and acceptability curves were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were performed for costs and effects, as well as probabilistic analyses. Zero and 3% discounts were applied to results. The cost-effectiveness threshold was equal to the per capita GDP per life-year gained. RESULTS: Alternatives with Iopamidol and Iodixanol are preferable to the others, because both reduce risk of contrast-induced nephropathy and are less costly. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the Iodixanol alternative compared to the Iopamidol alternative is US$ 14,660 per additional life year gained; this is more than twice the threshold. CONCLUSION: The low-osmolality contrast medium, Iopamidol, appears to be cost-effective when compared with Iohexol or other low-osmolality contrast media (Iopromide, Iobitridol, Iomeprol, Iopentol and Ioxilan) in contrast-induced nephropathy, high-risk outpatients. The choice of the iso-osmolality contrast medium, Iodixanol, depends on its cost per vial and on the willingness to pay.

Cost-effectiveness of iso- versus low-osmolality contrast media in outpatients with high risk of contrast medium-induced nephropathy / Costo-efectividad de medios de contraste isoosmolales e hiposmolales en pacientes con alto riesgo de nefropatía inducida por medio de contraste

Introduction. Contrast media can cause acute renal failure by direct toxic effects on the tubular cells and kidney ischemia. Diabetics and hospitalized patients have a greater risk of developing contrast-induced nephropathy than the general population. Objective. The cost effectiveness of iso and low-osmolality contrast media was assessed in high risk outpatients. Materials and methods. The analysis was based on a systematic literature review comparing the nephrotoxic effects of iso- to low-osmolality contrast media. Only direct costs were considered; these were obtained from the official tariff manual. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, efficiency curves and acceptability curves were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were performed for costs and effects, as well as probabilistic analyses. Zero and 3% discounts were applied to results. The cost-effectiveness threshold was equal to the per capita GDP per life-year gained. Results. Alternatives with Iopamidol and Iodixanol are preferable to the others, because both reduce risk of contrast-induced nephropathy and are less costly. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the Iodixanol alternative compared to the Iopamidol alternative is US$ 14,660 per additional life year gained; this is more than twice the threshold. Conclusion. The low-osmolality contrast medium, Iopamidol, appears to be cost-effective when compared with Iohexol or other low-osmolality contrast media (Iopromide, Iobitridol, Iomeprol, Iopentol and Ioxilan) in contrast-induced nephropathy, high-risk outpatients. The choice of the iso-osmolality contrast medium, Iodixanol, depends on its cost per vial and on the willingness to pay.

Introducción. Los medios de contraste pueden provocar falla renal aguda por toxicidad directa sobre las células tubulares e isquemia medular renal. Los pacientes diabéticos y los hospitalizados presentan mayor riesgo de desarrollar nefropatía inducida por medios de contraste que la población general. Objetivo. Establecer el costo-efectividad de los medios de contraste isosmolales e hiposmolales en pacientes con alto riesgo. Materiales and métodos. El análisis se basó en una revisión sistemática de la literatura científica, comparando los efectos nefrotóxicos de los medios isosmolales e hipoosmolales. Se consideraron sólo los costos directos, obtenidos del manual tarifario. Se calcularon las tasas del incremento del costo-efectividad, las curvas de eficiencia y de aceptabilidad. Se hicieron análisis univariados de sensibilidad para costos y efectos, así como probabilísticos. Se aplicaron tasas de descuento de 0 y 3 % a los resultados. Se usó como umbral de costo-efectividad por año de vida ganado, el producto interno bruto per cápita. Resultados. Las alternativas con Iopamidol y Iodixanol dominan a las demás porque reducen el riesgo de nefropatía inducida por contraste a un menor costo. La razón del incremento del costo-efectividad del iodixanol comparado con el iopamidol es de US$ 14.660 por año de vida ganado que más que duplica el umbral. Conclusión. El medio de baja osmolalidad, iopamidol, parece ser costo-efectivo comparado con iohexol u otros medios hiposmolares (iopromide, iobitridol, iomeprol, iopentol y ioxilan), en pacientes con alto riesgo de nefropatía inducida por contraste. La elección del medio hiposmolar, depende de la disponibilidad a pagar o del costo por ampolleta.

Comparison of enhancement, image quality, cost, and adverse reactions using 2 different contrast medium concentrations for routine chest CT on 16-slice MDCT.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree of enhancement and image quality of chest computed tomographic (CT) examinations on 16-slice multidetector CT using low-concentration [300 milligrams of iodine per milliliter (mg I/mL)] and high-concentration (370 mg I/mL) contrast media; to assess the impact on cost and adverse reactions of the use of high-iodine concentration contrast medium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients scheduled for routine chest CT examinations were administered nonionic contrast medium of 2 strengths: low-iodine concentration contrast medium (300 mg I/mL) [group A: n = 50; male-female ratio, 28:22; mean age, 58.4 years] and high-iodine concentration contrast medium (370 mg I/mL) (group B: n = 50; male-female ratio, 18:32; mean age, 57.6 years) with a constant amount of iodine (400 mg) injected per kilogram of body weight. Contrast media were injected using a dual injector at 2.5 mL/s followed by a 30-mL saline at 2.5 mL/s. The degree of enhancement was quantified by measuring Hounsfield unit values in different arteries and veins and was also rated on a 5-point scale for qualitative assessment. We also evaluated perivenous contrast-related artifacts. The data were compared using Mann-Whitney U test for both qualitative and quantitative enhancement ratings. A value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The value was adjusted using Bonferroni correction for statistical significance when multiple comparisons were performed. The difference in cost and the incidence of adverse reactions in both groups were calculated. RESULTS: The mean enhancement values in group B were significantly greater (P < 0.05) than those in group A. The mean Hounsfield units and standard deviation in groups A and B were aorta = 153 +/- 4, 216 +/- 20; pulmonary artery = 147 +/- 10, 208 +/- 20; superior vena cava = 155 +/- 27, 299 +/- 72; and pulmonary vein = 134 +/- 10, 215 +/- 30, respectively. The mean enhancement on a 5-point scale was greater in group B (4.2) than in group A (3.3) (P < 0.01). No significant difference between groups in perivenous artifacts was seen. Up to 5.5% savings in cost resulted from the use of a higher concentration of iodine, with no increase in adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher-concentration contrast media provides a higher degree of contrast enhancement and image quality for a routine chest CT on a 16-slice multidetector CT. It also contributes to considerable cost savings with no increased risk of adverse reactions compared with low-concentration contrast media.

Evaluation of "Gastromiro" for bowel opacification during computed tomography: comparison with diatrizoate and barium sulphate.

A new oral formulation of iopamidol, "Gastromiro", was evaluated as a bowel contrast agent during abdominal computed tomography (CT). Comparison was made with the well established agents sodium/meglumine diatrizoate ("Urografin 370") and dilute barium sulphate ("E-Z CAT") in a randomized, blind study of 150 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal and/or pelvic CT. Parameters assessed included quality of bowel opacification, artefact generation, contrast-medium palatibility, side effects and cost. No significant difference was found between the three contrast media in stomach- or small-bowel opacification. E-Z CAT was superior at opacifying the caecum/ascending colon. No compelling reason to choose a particular agent was found in the other assessed parameters, but cost is a significant factor.