Outcomes in Patients with Known Contrast Allergy Undergoing Contrast-Enhanced Endourologic Procedures: A Retrospective Cohort Study

• Published in: Journal of endourology Vol. 35; no. 12; p. 1857
• Main Authors: Joseph, Jason P, Domino, Paula, Bird, Vincent G, Sharma, Nitin, Ford, Susan, Caruso, Lawrence J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01-12-2021
• Subjects: Contrast Media - adverse effects; Humans; Hypersensitivity - etiology; Retrospective Studies; Urography; urinary tract; anaphylaxis; contrast allergy; pyelography
• DOI: 10.1089/end.2021.0198
• EISSN: 1557-900X

Intravenous (IV) administration of iodinated contrast agents carries the risk of allergic reaction, yet this risk is unclear with administration into the urinary tract. We sought to evaluate patients with known contrast, iodine, or shellfish allergies for allergic response when undergoing urologic imaging requiring intraluminal urinary tract contrast administration.
We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing endourologic procedures from 2010 to 2015 at our institution. Clinical records were reviewed for demographics, medical history, allergies, procedure details, fluids administered, anesthetic and pharmacologic agents administered, and continuous monitoring parameters. Patients with known allergies to iodine, shellfish, and/or contrast were identified and evaluated for clinical or hemodynamic signs of allergy. A convenience sample of 50 patients without allergy history was used as a comparison group.
We identified 1405 procedures involving 1000 consecutive patients. Procedures included retrograde pyelograms and antegrade nephrostograms. Eighty-six cases involving 58 patients with contrast, iodine, or shellfish allergies were identified. Of those with contrast allergy history, 18 (20.1%) cases involved patients with a history of anaphylactic reaction. Of these, 11 (61%) received steroid prophylaxis. No patients in either group (Allergy, No Allergy) were identified as having an allergic reaction during the procedure. There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative IV fluids (
 = 0.931), procedure duration (
 = 0.747), or vasopressor use (
 = 0.973) between groups. Owing to the zero event rate of contrast allergy, we used the Hanley and Lippman-Hand method, which places true population risk (95% confidence interval) of a significant event at <3.5%.
In 86 cases involving patients with a history of contrast allergy, we found no evidence of clinically significant allergic reaction to intraluminal endourologic contrast administration under continuous anesthesia monitoring. The risk of significant reactions to contrast administered within the urinary tract appears to be low in these patients, regardless of prophylaxis.