ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2020
Emergent Premedication for Contrast Allergy Prior to Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeManagement of contrast media allergies may lead to treatment delays in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular therapy. The optimal premedication strategy remains unclear. The aim of this report was to analyze our experience with emergent administration of premedication regimens before endovascular therapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed prospective data for all patients undergoing endovascular therapy from 2012 to 2019 at an academic comprehensive stroke center. Records of patients with documented contrast allergy were reviewed and analyzed. Data collected included stroke risk factors and characteristics, historical contrast reaction details, premedication regimens administered, and signs or symptoms of allergic reaction developing post-endovascular therapy. Hospital arrival time to endovascular therapy was compared with that in those who did not have a history of contrast allergy.
resultsWe analyzed 1521 patients undergoing endovascular therapy; 60 (4%) had documented contrast allergies and constituted the study cohort. The median age was 73 years (interquartile range, 66-81 years), and 65% were women. The median time from premedication to contrast was 24 minutes (interquartile range, 0-36 minutes). Forty-three patients (72%) proceeded directly to endovascular therapy; in 17 patients, the first contrast exposure was CTA. Time from hospital arrival to endovascular therapy was not slower for patients with documented allergies (96 versus 134 minutes,
conclusionsIn a single-institution cohort study of 60 consecutive patients with documented contrast allergies undergoing endovascular therapy with emergent premedication en route to (or in) the neuroangiography suite, no patients experienced allergic symptoms. This pragmatic approach may be safe for patients who have documented contrast media allergies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.