RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of eliminating the traditional preparatory fasting policy before contrast-enhanced CT on acute adverse reactions and to identify potential risk factors in a Spanish population sample, since many European patients still experience this unnecessary measure in clinical practice. METHODS: Outpatients who underwent non-emergency CT to either 6 h of solid food fasting (control group) or an unrestricted consumption of solids (intervention group). Adverse reactions during contrast media administration and up to 30 min afterward were recorded and their incidence was calculated. Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, various patient-related and technical factors were evaluated to identify risk factors for nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred three patients were evaluated, 560 patients in the control group, and 543 patients in the intervention group. Moderate and severe acute adverse reactions were not identified in either group. No statistical difference was found in the overall acute adverse reactions (hypersensitivity and chemotoxicity) incidence between groups (3.21% vs 2.30% p = 0.36). The total incidence of emetic adverse reactions (nausea and vomiting) was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (0.92% vs 2.86% p = 0.02). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that fasting, age, allergies, neurological diseases, and contrast media concentration were independent risk factors for nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Unrestricted food intake did not increase the overall incidence of acute adverse reactions and diminished the incidence of nausea and vomiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12623000071628. Registered 23 January 2023-retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=384985&showOriginal=true&isReview=true . CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This randomized clinical trial carried out in adults undergoing a non-emergent CT scan demonstrates that fasting as a preparation before a contrast-enhanced CT scan should be discontinued and reserved only for certain specific imaging tests. KEY POINTS: Despite low osmolar CT contrast media becoming ubiquitous, preparatory fasting is still widely practiced. The overall incidence of acute adverse reactions was unchanged after abolishing preparative fasting. Traditional preparatory fasting should be discontinued and reserved only for certain specific imaging tests.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Accurate differentiation between the intracranial and extracranial location of the acute internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion is essential for guiding treatment decisions and mechanical thrombectomy planning. Multiphase Computed Tomography angiography (mCTA) appears to be superior to Single-phase Computed Tomography angiography (sCTA) in the evaluation of acute ICA occlusions. The main objective of our research is to study the accuracy of mCTA compared to sCTA in distinguishing isolated acute intracranial ICA occlusion from extracranial or tandem occlusion. METHODS: Two observers independently analyzed sCTA and mCTA of patients with acute ICA occlusion at two different time points. The location of the occlusion was categorized as intracranial or extracranial for both imaging techniques and then compared with digital subtraction angiography (gold standard). Sensitivity and specificity rates for isolated intracranial ICA occlusion on sCTA and mCTA were calculated. Kappa statistics were used to assess interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The sensitivity of sCTA and mCTA was 48.28% (28.36%-68.19%) and 79.31% (62.84%-95.78%) respectively for the diagnosis of isolated intracranial ICA occlusion, with an almost perfect interobserver agreement between both observers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that mCTA is more accurate than sCTA in distinguishing isolated intracranial occlusions from extracranial or tandem occlusions.