Veilig gebruik van contrastmiddelen

Initiatief: NVvR Aantal modules: 48

Gadoliniumdepositie in het brein en lichaam

Uitgangsvraag

Wat is het effect van gadoliniumdepositie in de hersenen en in het lichaam?

Aanbeveling

Op dit moment is er geen bewijs van klinische symptomen of schade door gadoliniumdepositie in de hersenen of het lichaam.

 

Zorg voor een strikte indicatie voor gadolinium-versterkt MRI en gebruik alleen EMA-goedgekeurde gadoliniumhoudende contrastmiddelen bij alle patiënten om potentiële gadoliniumdepositie te minimaliseren*. 

 

Deze richtlijnwerkgroep ondersteunt de door de ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media gesuggereerde terminologie ‘Symptoms Associated with Gadolinium Exposure’ voor zelfgerapporteerde symptomen door patiënten.

 

*Zie ook module 4.3.3 Strategieën voor dosisreductie bij GBCA

Overwegingen

Narrative literature analysis (see also Introduction)

Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain – Extracellular Linear GBCA

The use of linear extracellular GBCA led to visible changes in signal intensity (SI) ratios and measurable Gd depositions in the rat, dog, and human brain (Davies, 2021; De Bevist, 2020; El Hamrani, 2020; Fretellier, 2019; Grahl, 2021; Koiso, 2019; Minaeva, 2020; Richter, 2020; Wang, 2019a) and in the anterior pituitary gland (Mallio, 2019). Most depositions were in perivascular foci in the DN and GP (Davies 2021), with evidence of co-localization to parenchymal iron (Minaeva, 2020).

 

The amount of deposition in rat brains occurred independent of age or sex (Fretellier, 2019). Local blood-brain barrier disruptions (e.g., radiotherapy) did not lead to an increase in deposition (Jost, 2019). Active inflammation showed higher Gd concentration in inflamed areas in mouse brains (Wang, 2019a), while the presence of diabetes led to lower brain concentrations (Wang, 2019b). There was a decrease in concentration over time in all brain regions, but long-term retention over 1 year occurred preferentially in the rat DN (El Hamrani, 2020).

 

The use of intra-articular gadopentetate did not lead to visible Gd-deposition in human brains (Bunnell, 2021).

 

Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain – Hepatobiliary Linear GBCA

 

The use of linear GBCA such as gadobenate and gadoxetate has been limited in the EU to hepatobiliary MRI indications. The approved standard dose of gadobenate is 0.05 mmol/kg, less than the dose of linear extracellular GBCA. However, outside the EU gadobenate is used for total body indications, in doses up to 0.1 mmol/kg. Use of gadobenate led to visible SI changes in human brain (Barisano, 2019; Nguyen, 2020). Neuroinflammation led to higher Gd concentrations in the rat brain after gadobenate use (Damme, 2020).

 

In human cadavers, the mean Gd concentration in brain was 3-6x higher for gadobenate compared to gadoterate, but washed out over time (Kobayashi, 2021). In sheep, the level of Gd retention 10 weeks after a single dose injection was 14-fold higher for gadobenate than for gadoterate (Radbruch, 2019).

 

A meta-analysis on Gd deposition of gadoxetate showed significant bias of the 5 included studies, and therefore presently available data on gadolinium deposition for gadoxetate is still incomplete (Schieda, 2020).

 

Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain – Macrocyclic GBCA

 

The administration of cumulative doses of macrocyclic GBCA did not lead to visible changes in T1 signal intensity (SI) or to changes in T1 relaxation times in rat and human brains in most studies (Bennani-Baiti, 2019; Deike-Hoffmann, 2019, Forslin, 2019, Fretellier, 2019, Hannoun, 2020; Neal, 2020), but not in all (Splendiani, 2020).

 

Quantitative susceptibility mapping showed a relation of susceptibility changes with the number of gadobutrol injections, but only for the GP (Choi, 2020).

 

In rat brains macrocyclic GBCA led to measurable Gd concentrations 1-5 weeks after administration, which were lower for gadoteridol compared to gadoterate and gadobutrol. The GBCA wash-out over time led to a 3-5-fold reduction from 1 to 5 weeks and was more rapid for gadoteridol. The levels at 5 weeks were in the order of 0.14-0.30 nmol Gd/g tissue (Bussi, 2020 and 2021).

 

Speciation of Gadolinium deposition in the brain

 

In speciation analyses in rat brains, the macrocyclic GBCA gadoterate was present exclusively as the intact GBCA. For the linear GBCA gadobenate and gadodiamide a combination of intact GBCA, complexes of dissociated Gd3+ bound to ferritin, and Gd3+ bound to other macromolecules was present. Incomplete column recovery suggested presence of labile complexes of dissociated Gd3+ with endogenous molecules. In addition, Gd was present in insoluble amorphous spheroid structures of 100-200 nm. Gadolinium was consistently co- localized with calcium, phosphate, and oxygen, suggesting the structures composed of mixed Gd/Ca-phosphates (Strzeminska, 2021 and 2022).

 

Gadolinium Deposition in the Abdominal Organs

 

Like in the brain, administration of linear GBCA led to increased Gd concentrations in abdominal organs, like kidney and liver. In sheep, concentrations were 3-21x higher than for macrocyclic GBCA: for kidney 502 vs. 86 ng/g tissue, for liver 445 vs 21 ng/g tissue, and for spleen 72 vs 4 ng/g tissue. Gadodiamide concentrations were 879, 780 and 137 ng/g, gadobenate concentrations 179, 157 and 16 ng/g, and gadobutrol 86, 35 and 6 ng/g tissue, respectively. However, no tissue alterations were detected (Richter, 2021).

 

In the abdominal organs Gd was least retained after administration of gadoxetate, followed by gadobutrol and gadodiamide when clinically recommended doses were administered.

Most of the retained gadolinium was excreted within 4 weeks after GBCA administration (Oh, 2020).

 

Administration of macrocyclic GBCA led to measurable Gd concentrations in liver and kidney 4 weeks after administration, which were lower for gadoteridol compared to gadoterate and gadobutrol. The levels for liver ranged 0.36-1.22 nmol Gd/g tissue and for kidney 39-294 nmol Gd/g tissue (Bussi, 2020 and 2021).

 

Gadolinium Deposition in the Bone and Skin

 

In rat skin, macrocyclic GBCA led to measurable Gd concentrations 1-5 weeks after administration, which were lower for gadoteridol compared to gadoterate and gadobutrol. The levels in skin where initially high, but after washout levels at 5 weeks were in the order of 0.31-0.53 nmol Gd/g tissue (Bussi, 2020 and 2021).

 

In human cadavers, 80 days after last GBCA exposure the mean Gd concentration in bone and skin was 2.9-4.4x higher for gadobenate compared to gadoterate. Bone was the primary Gd retention site with levels of 23-100 ng/g tissue/mmol GBCA. Gadolinium elimination rate was high for skin (Kobayashi, 2021).

 

Potential clinical symptoms of Gd deposition

 

Despite the retention of Gd in various tissues, no histopathologic changes in rat brains could be found (Ayers-Ringler 2022), nor tissue alterations in MS patients (Kühn, 2022).

 

In addition, no effect on sensorimotor or behavioural functions could be demonstrated for either linear or macrocyclic GBCA in mice (Akai 2021) or humans (Vymazal, 2020). Gadolinium retention was not related to symptom worsening in relapsing MS patients (Cocozza, 2019).

 

However, for linear GBCA, pain hypersensitivity has been seen in rats (Alkhunizi, 2020). In MS patients, increased relaxation was associated with lower information-processing speed (Forslin, 2019) or may result in mild effects on cerebellar speech or verbal fluency (Forslin, 2019; Kühn, 2022).

 

Self-reported symptoms of gadolinium deposition

 

The ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media has suggested alternative nomenclature for patients with a spectrum of self-reported symptoms and signs. These include neurologic, cognitive, musculoskeletal, and other non-specific complaints, and different cytokine levels. They suggest terming these Symptoms Associated with Gadolinium Exposure (SAGE), to standardize reporting. SAGE will need to replace older terms such as gadolinium deposition disease (GDD), gadolinium storage disease (GSD), and gadolinium storage condition (GSC) (McDonald, 2022).

 

In a clinical toxicology assessment of patients with potential ‘Gd toxicity’, none of the reported symptoms were likely to be caused by GBCA exposure (Layne, 2021).

 

SAGE patients may differ from normal controls in the level of cytokines and may differ in the response to chelation therapy. This suggests inflammatory, immunologic, or other physiological differences in patients with SAGE (Maecker, 2021).

 

Chelation therapy for Gadolinium deposition

 

Several chelating agents may influence the distribution of gadolinium after administration of linear GBCA (Acar, 2019). In rats, the chelating agent Ca-DTPA could induce a relevant urinary Gd excretion and reduce the amount of Gd in brain, but only after administration of gadodiamide (Boyken, 2019). In a study of SAGE patients Ca-DTPA could significantly increase urinary Gd excretion (Maecker, 2021). In contrast, Zn-DTPA administration could show no benefit of chelation therapy in rats after linear GBCA (Prybylski, 2019).

 

In patients with self-reported symptoms, there is no evidence that supports a link between gadolinium deposition and the development of clinical sequelae in patients with normal renal function. Caution should be exercised to use inappropriate chelation therapies for treatment of SAGE (Layne, 2020).

 

Recommendations

 

Disclaimer: Most recommendations in this module focus not so much on actions to be taken, but rather to increase awareness of gadolinium deposition.

 

To date, even though there is evidence that gadolinium is deposited in tissues, there is no evidence of clinical symptoms nor harm associated with gadolinium deposition in the brain and body.

 

Ensure a strict indication for gadolinium-enhanced MRI and only use EMA-approved gadolinium-based contrast agents in all patients to minimize possible gadolinium deposition.

 

This guideline committee supports the ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media’s suggested terminology of Symptoms Associated with Gadolinium Exposure (SAGE) for self- reported symptoms and signs.

 

Onderbouwing

In 2014, progressive unenhanced T1-weighted (T1w) signal intensity (SI) increases in the dentate nucleus (DN) and globus pallidus GP) in patients who received at least 6 doses of linear GBCA were observed (Kanda, 2014). This publication triggered a huge amount of research on this subject, but so far, no clinical correlates of gadolinium deposition have been found. In this module a narrative review of the recent data (2019-2022) on gadolinium deposition in the brain and body organs is presented. Recommendations for a sensible use of gadolinium in diagnostic MRI will be given to limit potential effects of gadolinium deposition that may not be known at the present date.

For this chapter it was decided not to perform a systematic literature analysis, and therefore no search question with PICO was formulated.

 

Search and select (Methods)

No systematic literature analysis was performed. Instead, the authors made an overview of all available literature from their own database and through cross referencing. A narrative literature analysis can be found below.

  1. Acar T, Kaya E, Yoruk MD, Duzenli N, Senturk RS, Can C, et al. Changes in tissue gadolinium biodistribution measured in an animal model exposed to four chelating agents. Jpn J Radiol. 2019; 37(6): 458-465.
  2. Akai H, Miyagawa K, Takahashi K, Mochida-Saito A, Kurokawa K, Takeda H, et al. Effects of gadolinium deposition in the brain on motor or behavioral function: A mouse model. Radiology. 2021; 301(2): 409-416.
  3. Alkhunizi SM, Fakhoury M, Abou-Kheir W, Lawand N. Gadolinium retention in the central and peripheral nervous system: implications for pain, cognition, and neurogenesis. Radiology. 2020; 297(2): 407-416.
  4. Ayers-Ringler J, McDonald JS, Connors MA, Fisher CR, Han S, Jakaitis DR, et al. Neurologic effects of gadolinium retention in the brain after gadolinium-based contrast agent administration. Radiology. 2022; 302(3): 676-683.
  5. Barisano G, Bigjahan B, Metting S, Cen S, Amezcua L, Lerner A, Toga AW, Law M. Signal hyperintensity on unenhanced T1-weighted brain and cervical spinal cord MR Images after multiple doses of linear gadolinium-based contrast agent. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019; 40(8): 1274-1281.
  6. Bennani-Baiti B, Krug B, Giese D, Hellmich M, Bartsch S, Helbich TH, Baltzer PAT. Evaluation of 3.0-T MRI brain signal after exposure to gadoterate meglumine in women with high breast cancer risk and screening breast MRI. Radiology. 2019; 293(3): 523-530.
  7. Boyken J, Frenzel T, Lohrke J, Jost G, Schütz G, Pietsch H. Impact of treatment with chelating agents depends on the stability of administered GBCAs: A comparative study in rats. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(2): 76-82.
  8. Bunnell KM, Hemke R, Husseini JS, Torriani M, Huang SY, Bredella MA. Does MR arthrography cause intracranial gadolinium deposition? Skeletal Radiol. 2020; 49(7): 1051-1056.
  9. Bussi S, Coppo A, Celeste R, Fanizzi A, Fringuello Mingo A, et al. Macrocyclic MR contrast agents: evaluation of multiple-organ gadolinium retention in healthy rats. Insights Imaging. 2020; 11(1): 11.
  10. Bussi S, Coppo A, Bonafè R, Rossi S, Colombo Serra S, Penard L, et al. Gadolinium clearance in the first 5 weeks after repeated intravenous administration of gadoteridol, gadoterate meglumine, and gadobutrol to rats. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021; 54(5): 1636-1644.
  11. Choi Y, Jang J, Kim J, Nam Y, Shin NY, Ahn KJ, et al. MRI and quantitative magnetic susceptibility maps of the brain after serial administration of gadobutrol: a longitudinal follow-up study. Radiology. 2020; 297(1): 143-150.
  12. Cocozza S, Pontillo G, Lanzillo R, Russo C, Petracca M, Di Stasi M, et al. MRI features suggestive of gadolinium retention do not correlate with Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening in multiple sclerosis. Neuroradiology. 2019; 61(2): 155-162.
  13. Davies J, Marino M, Smith APL, Crowder JM, Larsen M, Lowery L, et al. Repeat and single dose administration of gadodiamide to rats to investigate concentration and location of gadolinium and the cell ultrastructure. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 13950.
  14. Damme NM, Fernandez DP, Wang LM, Wu Q, Kirk RA, Towner RA, et al. Analysis of retention of gadolinium by brain, bone, and blood following linear gadolinium-based contrast agent administration in rats with experimental sepsis. Magn Reson Med. 2020; 83(6): 1930-1939.
  15. DeBevits JJ 4th, Munbodh R, Bageac D, Wu R, DiCamillo PA, Hu C, et al. Gray matter nucleus hyperintensity after monthly triple-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine with long-term Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(10): 629-635.
  16. Deike-Hofmann K, Reuter J, Haase R, Kuder T, Paech D, Bickelhaupt S, et al. No changes in T1 relaxometry after a mean of 11 administrations of gadobutrol. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(6): 381-386.
  17. El Hamrani D, Vives V, Buchholz R, Même W, Factor C, Fingerhut S, et al. Effect of long-term retention of gadolinium on metabolism of deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated injections of gadodiamide in rats. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(2): 120-128.
  18. Forslin Y, Martola J, Bergendal Å, Fredrikson S, Wiberg MK, Granberg T. Gadolinium retention in the brain: An MRI relaxometry study of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019; 40(8): 1265-1273.
  19. Fretellier N, Granottier A, Rasschaert M, Grindel AL, Baudimont F, Robert P, et al. Does age interfere with gadolinium toxicity and presence in brain and bone tissues: A comparative gadoterate versus gadodiamide study in juvenile and adult rats. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(2): 61-71.
  20. Grahl S, Bussas M, Pongratz V, Kirschke JS, Zimmer C, Berthele A, et al. T1-weighted intensity increase after a single administration of a linear gadolinium-based contrast agent in multiple sclerosis. Clin Neuroradiol. 2021; 31(1): 235-243.
  21. Hannoun S, Issa R, El Ayoubi NK, Haddad R, Baalbaki M, Yamout BI, et al. Gadoterate meglumine administration in multiple sclerosis has no effect on the dentate nucleus and the globus pallidus signal intensities. Acad Radiol. 2019; 26(10): e284-e291.
  22. Jost G, Frenzel T, Boyken J, Pietsch H. Impact of brain tumors and radiotherapy on the presence of gadolinium in the brain after repeated administration of gadolinium- based contrast agents: an experimental study in rats. Neuroradiology. 2019; 61(11): 1273-1280.
  23. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Ketajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: Relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 2014; 270(3): 834–841.
  24. Kobayashi M, Levendovszky SR, Hippe DS, Hasegawa M, Murata N, Murata K, et al. Comparison of human tissue gadolinium retention and elimination between gadoteridol and gadobenate. Radiology. 2021; 300(3): 559-569.
  25. Koiso T, Yamamoto M, Watanabe S, Barfod BE. Signal intensity increases in dentate nucleus/globus pallidus/pulvinar on unenhanced T1WI MR images after multiple examinations with gadodiamide. Neuroradiol J. 2019; 32(3): 215-224.
  26. Kühn I, Maschke H, Großmann A, Hauenstein K, Weber MA, Zettl UK, et al. Dentate nucleus gadolinium deposition on magnetic resonance imaging: ultrasonographic and clinical correlates in multiple sclerosis patients. Neurol Sci. 2022; 43(4): 2631-2639.
  27. Layne KA, Wood DM, Dargan PI. Gadolinium-based contrast agents - what is the evidence for 'gadolinium deposition disease' and the use of chelation therapy? Clin Toxicol 2020; 58(3): 151-160.
  28. Layne KA, Raja K, Dargan PI, Wood DM. Gadolinium concentrations in biological matrices from patients exposed to gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol. 2021; 56(7): 458-464.
  29. Maecker HT, Siebert JC, Rosenberg-Hasson Y, Koran LM, Ramalho M, Semelka RC. Acute chelation therapy-associated changes in urine gadolinium, self-reported flare severity, and serum cytokines in gadolinium deposition disease. Invest Radiol. 2021; 56(6): 374- 384.
  30. Mallio CA, Messina L, Parillo M, Lo Vullo G, Beomonte Zobel B, et al. Anterior pituitary gland T1 signal intensity is influenced by time delay after injection of gadodiamide. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1): 14967.
  31. McDonald RJ, Weinreb JC, Davenport MS. Symptoms Associated with Gadolinium Exposure (SAGE): A suggested term. Radiology. 2022; 302(2): 270-273.
  32. Minaeva O, Hua N, Franz ES, Lupoli N, Mian AZ, Farris CW, et al. Nonhomogeneous gadolinium retention in the cerebral cortex after intravenous administration of gadolinium-based contrast agent in rats and humans. Radiology. 2020; 294(2): 377- 385.
  33. Neal CH, Pujara AC, Srinivasan A, Chenevert TL, Malyarenko D, Khalatbari S, et al.
    Prospective imaging trial assessing gadoteridol retention in the deep brain nuclei of women undergoing breast MRI. Acad Radiol. 2020; 27(12): 1734-1741.
  34. Nguyen NC, Molnar TT, Cummin LG, Kanal E. Dentate nucleus signal intensity increases following repeated gadobenate dimeglumine administrations: A retrospective analysis. Radiology. 2020; 296(1): 122-130.
  35. Oh H, Chung YE, You JS, Joo CG, Kim PK, Lim JS, et al. Gadolinium retention in rat abdominal organs after administration of gadoxetic acid disodium compared to gadodiamide and gadobutrol. Magn Reson Med. 2020; 84(4): 2124-2132.
  36. Prybylski JP, Coste Sanchez C, Jay M. Impact of chelation timing on gadolinium deposition in rats after contrast administration. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 55: 140-144.
  37. Radbruch A, Richter H, Fingerhut S, Martin LF, Xia A, Henze N, et al. Gadolinium deposition in the brain in a large animal model: Comparison of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium- based contrast agents. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(9): 531-536.
  38. Richter H, Bücker P, Martin LF, Dunker C, Fingerhut S, Xia A, et al. Gadolinium tissue distribution in a large-animal model after a single dose of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology. 2021; 301(3): 637-642.
  39. Richter H, Bücker P, Dunker C, Karst U, Kircher PR. Gadolinium deposition in the brain of dogs after multiple intravenous administrations of linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. PLoS One. 2020; 15(2): e0227649.
  40. Schieda N, van der Pol CB, Walker D, Tsampalieros AK, Maralani PJ, Woo S, et al. Adverse events to the gadolinium-based contrast agent gadoxetic acid: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2020; 297(3): 565-572.
  41. Splendiani A, Corridore A, Torlone S, Martino M, Barile A, Di Cesare E, et al. Visible T1- hyperintensity of the dentate nucleus after multiple administrations of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents: Yes, or no? Insights Imaging. 2019; 10(1): 82.
  42. Strzeminska I, Factor C, Robert P, Szpunar J, Corot C, Lobinski R. Speciation analysis of gadolinium in the water-insoluble rat brain fraction after administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol. 2021; 56(9): 535-544.
  43. Strzeminska I, Factor C, Jimenez-Lamana J, Lacomme S, Subirana MA, Le Coustumer P, et al. Comprehensive speciation analysis of residual gadolinium in deep cerebellar nuclei in rats repeatedly administered with gadoterate meglumine or gadodiamide. Invest Radiol. 2022; 57(5): 283-292.
  44. Vymazal J, Krámská L, Brožová H, Růžička E, Rulseh AM. Does serial administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents affect patient neurological and neuropsychological status? Fourteen-year follow-up of patients receiving more than fifty contrast administrations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020; 51(6): 1912-1913.
  45. Wang S, Hesse B, Roman M, Stier D, Castillo-Michel H, Cotte M, et al. Increased retention of gadolinium in the inflamed brain after repeated administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine: A proof-of-concept study in mice combining ICP-MS and micro- and nano-SR-XRF. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(10): 617-626.
  46. Wang ST, Hua ZX, Fan DX, Zhang X, Ren K. Gadolinium retention and clearance in the diabetic brain after administrations of gadodiamide, gadopentetate dimeglumine, and gadoterate meglumine in a rat model. Biomed Res Int. 2019; 2019: 3901907.

Autorisatiedatum en geldigheid

Laatst beoordeeld  : 28-11-2022

Laatst geautoriseerd  : 28-11-2022

Geplande herbeoordeling  :

Validity

The Radiological Society of the Netherlands (NVvR) will determine around 2027 if this guideline (per module) is still valid and applicable. If necessary, the scientific societies will form a new guideline group to revise the guideline. The validity of a guideline can be shorter than 5 years, if new scientific or healthcare structure developments arise, that could be a reason to commence revisions. The Radiological Society of the Netherlands is the owner of this guideline and thus primarily responsible for the actuality of the guideline. Other scientific societies that have participated in the guideline development share the responsibility to inform the primarily responsible scientific society about relevant developments in their field.

Initiatief en autorisatie

Initiatief:
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiologie
Geautoriseerd door:
  • Nederlandse Internisten Vereniging
  • Nederlandse Vereniging van Maag-Darm-Leverartsen
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Cardiologie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Heelkunde
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Neurologie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiologie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Chemie en Laboratoriumgeneeskunde
  • Patiëntenfederatie Nederland
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Allergologie en Klinische Immunologie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Endocrinologie
  • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Vaatchirurgie

Algemene gegevens

General Information

The Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (www.kennisinstituut.nl) assisted the guideline development group. The guideline was financed by Stichting Kwaliteitsgelden Medisch Specialisten (SKMS) which is a quality fund for medical specialists in The Netherlands.

Samenstelling werkgroep

Guideline development group (GDG)

A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed for the development of the guideline in 2020. The GDG consisted of representatives from all relevant medical specialization fields which were using intravascular contrast administration in their field.

 

All GDG members have been officially delegated for participation in the GDG by their scientific societies. The GDG has developed a guideline in the period from June 2020 until November 2022. The GDG is responsible for the complete text of this guideline.

 

Guideline development group

  • Dekkers I.A. (Ilona), clinical epidemiologist and radiologist, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
  • Geenen R.W.F. (Remy), radiologist, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar
  • Kerstens M.N. (Michiel), internist-endocrinologist, University Medical Centre Groningen
  • Krabbe J.G. (Hans), clinical chemist-endocrinologist, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede
  • Rossius M.J.P. (Mariska), radiologist, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam
  • Uyttenboogaart M. (Maarten), neurologist and neuro-interventionalist, University Medical Centre Groningen
  • van de Luijtgaarden K.M. (Koen), vascular surgeon, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam
  • van der Molen A.J. (Aart), chair guideline development group, radiologist, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
  • van der Wolk S.L. (Sabine), gynaecologist-obstetrician, Haga Ziekenhuis, Den Haag
  • van de Ven A.A.J.M. (Annick), internist-allergologist-immunologist, University Medical Centre Groningen (until 1.7.2022)
  • van der Houwen, T.B. (Tim), internist-allergologist-immunologist, Amsterdam University Medical Center (from 1.7.2022)

Invited experts

  • van Maaren M.S. (Maurits), internist-allergologist-immunologist, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam

Belangenverklaringen

Conflicts of interest

The GDG members have provided written statements about (financially supported) relations with commercial companies, organisations or institutions that were related to the subject matter of the guideline. Furthermore, inquiries have been made regarding personal financial interests, interests due to personal relationships, interests related to reputation management, interest related to externally financed research and interests related to knowledge valorisation. The statements on conflict of interest can be requested from the administrative office of Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (secretariaat@kennisinstituut.nl) and were summarised below.

 

Last name

Function

Other positions

Personal financial

interests

Personal relations

Reputation management

Externally financed

research

Knowledge valorisation

Other interests

Signed

Actions

Dekkers IA

Radiologist, LUMC

Clinical Epidemiologist

 

Member of contrast media safety committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (no payment)

 

Member, Gadolinium Research and Education Committee, European Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, and Biology (no

payment)

No

No

No

No

No

Received consultancy fees from Guerbet, 2019-

2022

July 24th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 12th, 2022

No restrictions: received in part 3 of the guideline speaker fees, but this guideline does not mention specific medication, not of working mechanism, nor of side effects.

Geenen RWF

Radiologist, Noordwest ziekenhuisgroep

/Medisch specialisten

Noordwest

Member of contrast media safety

committee, European

Society of Urogenital

Radiology (no payment)

No

No

No

No

No

No

April 11th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 12th,

2022

No restrictions

Houwen T, van der

Internist - Immunologist - Allergologist, Amsterdam UMC, also seconded allergologist in Huid Medisch

Centrum

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

July 11th, 2022 Reaffirmed October 12th, 2022

No restrictions

Kerstens MN

Internist- endocrinologist, UMCG

Chairman Bijniernet (no payment)

No

No

No

No

No

No

July 1st, 2020, reaffirmed October 25th,

2022

No restrictions

Krabbe JG

Clinical chemist, Medisch Spectrum Twente

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

September 1st, 2020,

Reaffirmed October 13th, 2022

No restrictions

Luijtgaarden KM, van de

Vascular surgeon, Maasland Ziekenhuis

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

August 1st, 2020,

reaffirmed October 26th, 2022

No restrictions

Molen AJ, van der

Radiologist LUMC

Member of contrast media safety committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (no

payment)

 

Member, Gadolinium Research and Education Committee, European Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, and Biology (no

payment)

No

No

No

No

No

Received consultancy fees from Guerbet, 2019-

2022

July, 24th, 2020 Reaffirmed October 12th, 2022

No restrictions: received in part 3 of the guideline speaker fees, but this guideline does not mention

Specific medication, not

of working mechanism, nor of side effects.

Rossius MJP

Radiologist Erasmus Medical Centre

Medical coordinator (no payment)

No

No

No

No

No

No

April 7th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 13th,

2022

No restrictions

Uyttenboogaart M

Neurologist and neuro- interventionalist UMCG

Advisor International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapist / Nederlandse Vereniging Manuele Therapie

No

No

Subsidy Hart Stichting for CONTRAST

(Consortium of New Treatments in Acute Stroke): WP8 Stroke logistics and Epidemiology: financing of 2 PhD students by the Hart Stichting / PPS

Allowance

Work package leader CONTRAST

(Consortium of New Treatments in Acute Stroke): WP8 Stroke logistics and Epidemiology

No

No

June 30th, 2020, reaffirmed October 26th, 2022

No restrictions: the CONTRAST

consortium wp8 is only about organisation and treatment of stroke.

Stroke is not in this guideline.

Ven AAJM, van de

Internist- allergologist- immunologist, UMCG

Education and research related to work as internist-

allergist

No

No

No

No

No

No

April 7th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 19th, 2022

No restrictions

Wolk S, van der

Gynaecologist- obstetrician, Haga Ziekenhuis

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

June 30th, 2021, reaffirmed October 25th,

2022

No restrictions

Inbreng patiëntenperspectief

Input of patient’s perspective

The guideline does not address a specific adult patient group, but a diverse set of diagnoses. Therefore, it was decided to invite a broad spectrum of patient organisations for the stakeholder consultation. The stakeholder consultation was performed at the beginning of the process for feedbacking on the framework of subjects and clinical questions addressed in the guideline, and during the commentary phase to provide feedback on the concept guideline. The list of organisations which were invited for the stakeholder consultation can be requested from the Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (secretariaat@kennisinstituut.nl). In addition, patient information on safe use of contrast media in pregnancy and lactation was developed for Thuisarts.nl, a platform to inform patients about health and disease.

Implementatie

Implementation

During different phases of guideline development, implementation and practical enforceability of the guideline were considered. The factors that could facilitate or hinder the introduction of the guideline in clinical practice have been explicitly considered. The implementation plan can be found in the ‘Appendices to modules’. Furthermore, quality indicators were developed to enhance the implementation of the guideline. The indicators can also be found in the ‘Appendices to modules’.

Werkwijze

Methodology

AGREE

This guideline has been developed conforming to the requirements of the report of Guidelines for Medical Specialists 2.0 by the advisory committee of the Quality Counsel (www.kwaliteitskoepel.nl). This report is based on the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) (www.agreetrust.org), a broadly accepted instrument in the international community and based on the national quality standards for guidelines: “Guidelines for guidelines” (www.zorginstituutnederland.nl).

 

Identification of subject matter

During the initial phase of the guideline development, the GDG identified the relevant subject matter for the guideline. The framework is consisted of both new matters, which were not yet addressed in part 1 and 2 of the guideline, and an update of matters that were subject to modification (for example in case of new published literature). Furthermore, a stakeholder consultation was performed, where input on the framework was requested.

 

Clinical questions and outcomes

The outcome of the stakeholder consultation was discussed with the GDG, after which definitive clinical questions were formulated. Subsequently, the GDG formulated relevant outcome measures (both beneficial and harmful effects). The GDG rated the outcome measures as critical, important and of limited importance (GRADE method). Furthermore, where applicable, the GDG defined relevant clinical differences.

 

Search and select

For clinical questions, specific search strategies were formulated, and scientific articles published in several electronic databases were searched. First, the studies that potentially had the highest quality of research were reviewed. The GDG selected literature in pairs (independently of each other) based on the title and abstract. A second selection was performed by the methodological advisor based on full text. The databases used, selection criteria and number of included articles can be found in the modules, the search strategy in the appendix.

 

Quality assessment of individual studies

Individual studies were systematically assessed, based on methodological quality criteria that were determined prior to the search. For systematic reviews, a combination of the AMSTAR checklist and PRISMA checklist was used. For RCTs the Cochrane risk of bias tool and suggestions by the CLARITY Group at McMaster University were used, and for cohort studies/observational studies the risk of bias tool by the CLARITY Group at McMaster University was used. The risk of bias tables can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules.

 

Summary of literature

The relevant research findings of all selected articles were shown in evidence tables. The evidence tables can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules. The most important findings in literature were described in literature summaries. When there were enough similarities between studies, the study data were pooled.

 

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

The strength of the conclusions of the included studies was determined using the GRADE- method. GRADE stands for Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (see http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) (Atkins, 2004). GRADE defines four levels for the quality of scientific evidence: high, moderate, low, or very low. These levels provide information about the certainty level of the literature conclusions (http://www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook).

 

The evidence was summarized in the literature analysis, followed by one or more conclusions, drawn from the body of evidence. The level of evidence for the conclusions can be found above the conclusions. Aspects such as expertise of GDG members, local expertise, patient preferences, costs, availability of facilities and organisation of healthcare aspects are important to consider when formulating a recommendation. These aspects are discussed in the paragraph justifications. The recommendations provide an answer to the clinical question or help to increase awareness and were based on the available scientific evidence and the most relevant justifications.

 

Appendices

Internal (meant for use by scientific society or its members) quality indicators were developed with the guideline and can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules. In most cases, indicators were not applicable. For most questions, additional scientific research on the subject is warranted. Therefore, the GDG formulated knowledge gaps to aid in future research, which can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules.

 

Commentary and authorisation phase

The concept guideline was subjected to commentaries by the involved scientific societies. The list of parties that participated in the commentary phase can be requested from the Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (secretariaat@kennisinstituut.nl). The commentaries were collected and discussed with the GDG. The feedback was used to improve the guideline; afterwards the GDG made the guideline definitive. The final version of the guideline was offered to the involved scientific societies for authorization and was authorized.

 

Literature

Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010; 182(18): E839-E842.

Medisch Specialistische Richtlijnen 2.0. Adviescommissie Richtlijnen van de Raad Kwaliteit, 2012. Available at: [URL].

Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available at: [URL].

Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106- 1110. Erratum published in: BMJ 2008;336(7654).

Ontwikkeling van Medisch Specialistische Richtlijnen: stappenplan. Kennisinstituut van Medisch Specialisten, 2020.

Volgende:
Zwangerschap en lactatie