Debunking myths about “allergy” to radiocontrast media in an academic institution

Abstract

Purpose: Patients with “allergy” to iodine and shellfish often do not obtain necessary radiologic procedures due to anxiety about potential radiocontrast media reactions. This study assesses the impact of an educational intervention to dispel these myths. Methods: The authors surveyed 252 internal medicine, emergency medicine, pediatrics, radiology, obstetrics/gynecology, and surgery health professionals before and after an educational intervention. Pre- and posttest responses were analyzed to assess the impact of the intervention on beliefs about radiocontrast media reactions and their perceived relationship to shellfish allergy and iodine “allergy.” Results: The mean pre- and posttest correct response scores were 41% and 91%, respectively. The intervention had a greater impact on respondents’ knowledge about iodine allergy than shellfish allergy, most likely due to the difference in baseline knowledge (P < 0.005). Emergency medicine garnered the highest pretest correct response score (54%). Internal medicine earned the lowest pretest score (30%). There was a significant difference between the highest and lowest scoring specialties on the pretest (P = 0.037). There was no statistically significant correlation with training levels. There was a considerable decrease in the percentage of respondents who would withhold radiologic studies from patients suspected of shellfish or iodine allergy. The percentage of respondents who would premedicate patients with antihistamines or steroids also decreased significantly. Conclusion: An educational intervention helps rectify misconceptions among health care professionals about radiocontrast media reactions and their perceived relationship to shellfish or iodine allergy.