Contrast media for fluoroscopic examinations of the GI and GU tracts: current challenges and recommendations.

One of the significant challenges facing radiologists who perform and interpret studies of the gastrointestinal and genitourinary systems have been periodic interruptions in the availability of barium and iodinated contrast media specially formulated for gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) studies. These interruptions are due to the US Food and Drug Administration's recent requirement for more stringent documentation of the safety and efficacy of contrast media and the consolidation among contrast manufacturers. Therefore, radiologists may be required to recommend an alternative means of evaluation, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance, or endoscopy, or they may need to substitute a different formulation of a contrast agent not specifically developed for GI or GU use, for example the utilization of an agent designed and marketed for vascular use. This article reviews the current status of fluoroscopic contrast media, and provides suggestions and recommendations for the optimal and alternative use of contrast media formulations.

Anaphylactoid reactions to the nonvascular administration of water-soluble iodinated contrast media.

OBJECTIVE: Anaphylactoidlike reactions occur during the nonvascular administration of iodinated contrast media. Many of these reactions have been severe. These reactions have occurred with many procedures, including gastrointestinal imaging, cystography, sialography, and hysterosalpingography. CONCLUSION: This article reviews reports of these reactions. It also reviews what the literature recommends concerning how to deal with individuals undergoing these procedures who are at a higher risk for anaphylactoidlike reactions.

The inflammatory bowel disease live interinstitutional and interdisciplinary videoconference education (IBD LIVE) series.

BACKGROUND: Managing patients with inflammatory bowel disease requires multidisciplinary coordination. Technological advances have enhanced access to care for patients and improved physician interactions. The primary aim of our project was to convene diverse institutions and specialties through a multisite virtual conferencing platform to discuss complex patient management. METHODS: The case conference is designed to include multiple institutions to exchange ideas, review evidence-based data, and provide input on the management of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Technology is supplied and coordinated by an information technology specialist and Chorus Call, Inc., an international teleconferencing service provider. The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Live Interinstitutional Interdisciplinary Videoconference Education (IBD LIVE) initiative is accredited by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Center for Continuing Education in the Health Sciences for 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit per weekly session. RESULTS: IBD LIVE began in 2009 comprising only adult gastroenterology and pediatric gastroenterology from UPMC Presbyterian and Children's Hospitals. Participation steadily increased from 5 sites in 2010 to 11 sites in 2014. Maximum attendance for a single conference was 73 participants with a median of 48. The Continuing Medical Education scores (1 = worst to 5 = best) have a high median overall score (4.6, range 3.2-5.0) with positive responses with regard to the degree to which the conference changed practice. CONCLUSIONS: IBD LIVE has been successful and continues to grow. Implementation of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America Virtual Preceptor Program using the IBD LIVE platform will provide expanded national physician access to this professional education activity.

Efficacy and safety of MR imaging with liver-specific contrast agent: U.S. multicenter phase III study.

PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the efficacy and safety of postcontrast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) compared with that of precontrast MR imaging in patients who are known to have or are suspected of having liver lesions and who are scheduled for hepatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Investigational review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. HIPAA went into effect after data collection. A total of 172 patients were enrolled. After precontrast MR imaging, 169 patients (94 men, 75 women; mean age, 61 years; age range, 19-84 years) received an intravenous bolus of 25 micromol/kg Gd-EOB-DTPA and underwent dynamic gradient-recalled-echo and delayed MR imaging 20 minutes after injection. Arterial and portal phase computed tomography (CT) were performed within 6 weeks of MR imaging. The standard of reference was surgery with intraoperative ultrasonography (US) and biopsy and/or pathologic evaluation of resected liver segments and/or 3-month follow-up of nonresected segments if intraoperative US was not available. Three blinded reviewers and unblinded site investigators identified liver lesions on segment maps. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare differences in per-patient sensitivity of precontrast and postcontrast MR images. Adverse events were recorded, and patient monitoring and laboratory assay were performed at time of injection and up to 24 hours after contrast material administration. RESULTS: At MR imaging, 316 lesions were identified in 131 patients. In 77% (P = .012), 72% (P = .15), and 71% (P = .027) of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, more lesions were seen at precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging combined than at precontrast MR imaging alone. Sensitivity values for blinded readings were significantly greater at postcontrast MR imaging than at precontrast MR imaging for two of three blinded readers. For all blinded readers, combined precontrast and postcontrast MR images showed no difference in sensitivity compared with helical CT scans. The use of MR imaging, however, yielded fewer patients with at least one false-positive lesion (37%, 31%, and 34% of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively) than did helical CT (45%, 36%, and 43% of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with precontrast MR imaging, postcontrast MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA demonstrated improved sensitivity for lesion detection in the majority of blinded readers, with no substantial adverse events.

Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.

PURPOSE: To measure observer performance at various levels of prevalence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multiobserver multiabnormality receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study to assess the effect of prevalence on observer performance was conducted. Fourteen observers, including eight faculty members, two fellows, and four residents, interpreted 1,632 posteroanterior chest images with five prevalence levels by using a nested study design. Performance comparisons were accomplished by using a multireader multicase approach to assess the effect of prevalence from 28% (69 of 249) to 2% (31 of 1,577) on diagnostic accuracy. The mean times required to review and report a case were analyzed and compared for different levels of prevalence and readers' experience. RESULTS: Area under the ROC curve demonstrated that, with the study experimental conditions, no significant effect could be measured as a function of prevalence (P >.05) for any abnormality, group of cases, or readers. There were no significant differences (P >.05) in the mean times required to review and report cases at different prevalence levels and with different groups of readers. CONCLUSION: The consistency in the results and the size of this study suggest that with laboratory conditions, if a prevalence effect exists, it is quite small in magnitude; hence, it will not likely alter conclusions derived from such studies.