Terug naar zoekresultaten

Veilig gebruik van contrastmiddelen

Volgen
Initiatief: NVvR Aantal modules: 48
Bijlagen
Download richtlijn

Gadoliniumdepositie

Beoordeeld: 28-11-2022

Contents of chapter 9:

  • Introduction to Safe Use of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents (updated)
  • Module 9.1 Gadolinium deposition in the brain and body (updated)
  • Module 9.2 Strategies for Dose Reduction of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents (new)
 

Onderbouwing

  1. Aime S, Caravan P. Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 1259-1267.
  2. Balzer T. Presence of gadolinium (Gd) in the brain and body. Presentation to the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee, FDA. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2017.
  3. Bellin MF, Van Der Molen AJ. Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: an overview.
    Eur J Radiol 2008; 66: 160-167.
  4. Burke LM, Ramalho M, Al Obaidy M, Chang E, Jay M, Semelka RC. Self-reported gadolinium toxicity: a survey of patients with chronic symptoms. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34: 1078-1080.
  5. Caravan P, Ellison J, McMurry TJ, Lauffer RB. Gadolinium (III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structure, dynamics and applications. Chem Rev 1999; 99: 2293–2352.
  6. Çeliker FB, Tumkaya L, Mercantepe T, Beyazal M, Turan A, Beyazal Polat H, et al. Effects of gadodiamide and gadoteric Acid on rat kidneys: A comparative study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019; 49: 382-389.
  7. Darrah TH, Prutsman-Pfeiffer JJ, Poreda RJ, Ellen Campbell M, Hauschka PV, Hannigan RE. Incorporation of excess gadolinium into human bone from medical contrast agents. Metallomics 2009; 1: 479-488.
  8. De Kerviler E, Maravilla K, Meder JF, Naggara O, Dubourdieu C, Jullien V, et al. Adverse reactions to gadoterate meglumine: review of over 25 years of clinical use and more than 50 million doses. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 544-551.
  9. De León-Rodríguez LM, Martins AF, Pinho MC, Rofsky NM, Sherry AD. Basic MR relaxation mechanisms and contrast agent design. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42: 545-565.
  10. Deike-Hofmann K, Reuter J, Haase R, Paech D, Gnirs R, Bickelhaupt S, et al. Glymphatic pathway of gadolinium-based contrast agents through the brain: overlooked and misinterpreted. Invest Radiol 2019; 54: 229-237.
  11. Dekkers IA, Roos R, van der Molen AJ. Gadolinium retention after administration of contrast agents based on linear chelators and the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 1579–1584.
  12. Di Gregorio E, Ferrauto G, Furlan C, Lanzardo S, Nuzzi R, Gianolio E, et al. The issue of gadolinium retained in tissues insights on the role of metal complex stability by comparing metal uptake in murine tissues upon the concomitant administration of lanthanum- and gadolinium-diethylene-triaminopenta-acetate. Invest Radiol 2018; 53: 167–172.
  13. Elster AD. T1 shortening by Gad. Available at: [URL]. Accessed: 15. April 2022.
  14. Endrikat J, Dohanish S, Schleyer N, Schwenke S, Agarwal S, Balzer T. 10 years of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a comprehensive analysis of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis reports received by a pharmaceutical company from 2006 to 2016. Invest Radiol 2018; 53:
    541-550.
  15. Errante Y, Cirimele V, Mallio CA, Di Lazzaro V, Zobel BB, Quattrocchi CC. Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function, suggesting dechelation. Invest Radiol 2014; 49: 685-690.
  16. European Medicines Agency. EMA’s final opinion confirms restrictions on use of linear gadolinium agents in body scans (21 july 2017). Available at: [URL]. Accessed: 15 April 2022.
  17. Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, Hütter J, Weinmann HJ. Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37° C. Invest Radiol 2008; 43: 817-828.
  18. Frenzel T, Apte C, Jost G, Schöckel L, Lohrke J, Pietsch H. Quantification and assessment of the chemical form of residual gadolinium in the brain after repeated administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents: comparative study in rats. Invest Radiol 2017; 52: 396-404.
  19. Gathings RM, Reddy R, Santa Cruz D, Brodell RT. Gadolinium-associated plaques: a new, distinctive clinical entity. JAMA Dermatol 2015; 151: 316-319.
  20. Gianolio E, Bardini P, Arena F, Rachel S, Di Gregorio E, Iani R, et al. Gadolinium retention in the rat brain: assessment of the amounts of insoluble gadolinium-containing species and intact gadolinium complexes after repeated administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology 2017; 285: 839–849.
  21. Hao D, Ai T, Goerner F, Hu X, Runge VM, Tweedle M. MRI contrast agents: basic chemistry and safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 36: 1060–1071.
  22. Idée JM, Port M, Raynal I, Schaefer M, Le Greneur S, Corot C. Clinical and biological consequences of transmetallation induced by contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2006; 20: 563–576.
  23. Idée JM, Fretellier N, Robic C, Corot C. The role of gadolinium chelates in the mechanism of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: A critical update. Crit Rev Toxicol 2014; 44: 895-913.
  24. Joffe P, Thomsen HS, Meusel M. Pharmacokinetics of gadodiamide injection in patients with severe renal insufficiency and patients undergoing hemodialysis or continuous

    ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Acad Radiol 1998; 5: 491–502.
  25. Jost G, Lenhard DC, Sieber MA, Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Pietsch H. Signal increase on unenhanced T1-weighted images in the rat brain after repeated, extended doses of gadolinium- based contrast agents: comparison of linear and macrocyclic agents. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 83–89.
  26. Jost G, Frenzel T, Lohrke J, Lenhard DC, Naganawa S, Pietsch H. Penetration and distribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents into the cerebrospinal fluid in healthy rats: A potential pathway of entry into the brain. Eur Radiol 2017; 27:2877–2885.
  27. Jost G, Frenzel T, Boyken J, Lohrke J, Nischwitz V, Pietsch H. Long-term excretion of gadolinium-based contrast agents: linear versus macrocyclic agents in an experimental rat model. Radiology 2019; 290: 340-348.
  28. Kanal E. Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA): Safety overview after 3 decades of clinical experience. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34: 1341–1345.
  29. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima 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: 834-841.
  30. Lancelot E. Revisiting the pharmacokinetic profiles of gadolinium-based contrast agents.
    Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 691-700.
  31. Le Fur M, Caravan P. The biological fate of gadolinium-based MRI contrast agents: a call to action for bioinorganic chemists. Metallomics 2019; 11: 240-254.
  32. Lin SP, Brown JJ. MR contrast agents: physical and pharmacologic basics. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25: 884–899.
  33. Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J, Alves FC, Grist TM, Law M, et al. 25 years of contrast- enhanced MRI: developments, current challenges and future perspectives. Adv Ther 2016; 33: 1–28.
  34. Maximova N, Gregori M, Zennaro F, Sonzogni A, Simeone R, Zanon D. Hepatic gadolinium deposition and reversibility after contrast agent-enhanced MR imaging of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Radiology 2016; 281: 418-426.
  35. McDonald RJ, McDonald J, Kallmes D, Jentoft ME, Murray DL, Thielen KR, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015; 275: 772-782.
  36. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Dai D, Schroeder D, Jentoft ME, Murray DL, et al. Comparison of gadolinium concentrations within multiple rat organs after intravenous administration of linear versus macrocyclic gadolinium chelates. Radiology 2017; 285: 536-545.
  37. McDonald RJ, Levine D, Weinreb J, Kanal E, Davenport MS, Ellis JH, et al. Gadolinium retention: a research roadmap from the 2018 NIH/ACR/RSNA workshop on gadolinium chelates. Radiology 2018; 289: 517-534.
  38. Mercantepe T, Tümkaya L, Çeliker FB, Topal Suzan Z, Çinar S, Akyildiz K, et al. Effects of gadolinium-based MRI contrast agents on liver tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 48: 1367-1374.
  39. Murata N, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Murata K, Fligner C, Dills R, Hippe D, et al. Macrocyclic and other non–group 1 gadolinium contrast agents deposit low levels of gadolinium in brain and bone tissue. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 447-453l
  40. Port M, Idee JM, Medina C, Robic C, Sabatou M, Corot C. Efficiency, thermodynamic and kinetic stability of marketed gadolinium chelates and their possible clinical consequences: a critical review. Biometals 2008; 21: 469–490l
  41. Parillo M, Sapienza M, Arpaia F, Magnani F, Mallio CA, DʼAlessio P, et al. A structured survey on adverse events occurring within 24 hours after intravenous exposure to

    gadodiamide or gadoterate meglumine: a controlled prospective comparison study.Invest Radiol 2019; 54: 191-197.
  42. Pietsch H, Lengsfeld P, Jost G, Frenzel T, Hütter J, Sieber MA. Long-term retention of gadolinium in the skin of rodents following the administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1417-1424.
  43. Pullicino R, Radon M, Biswas S, Bhojak M, Das K. A Review of the Current evidence on gadolinium deposition in the brain. Clin Neuroradiol 2018; 28: 159-169.
  44. Quattrocchi CC, Ramalho J, van der Molen AJ, Rovira À, Radbruch A; GREC, European Gadolinium Retention Evaluation Consortium and the ESNR, European Society of Neuroradiology. Standardized assessment of the signal intensity increase on unenhanced T1-weighted images in the brain: the European Gadolinium Retention Evaluation Consortium (GREC) Task Force position statement. Eur Radiol 2019.
  45. Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. High-signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images: evaluation of the macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent gadobutrol. Invest Radiol 2015; 50: 805–810.
  46. Radbruch A, Haase R, Kieslich PJ, Weberling LD, Kickingereder P, Wick W, et al. No signal intensity increase in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images after more than 20 serial injections of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology 2017; 282: 699-707.
  47. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, Al-Obaidy M, Ramalho M, Nunes RH, Castillo M. Signal intensity change on unenhanced T1-weighted images in dentate nucleus following gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with and without previous multiple administrations of gadodiamide. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 4080–4088.
  48. Robert P, Lehericy S, Grand S, Violas X, Fretellier N, Idée JM, Ballet S, Corot C. T1-weighted hypersignal in the deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents in healthy rats: difference between linear and macrocyclic agents. Invest Radiol 2015; 50: 473-480.
  49. Robert P, Violas X, Grand S, Lehericy S, Idée JM, Ballet S, Corot C. Linear gadolinium-based contrast agents are associated with brain gadolinium retention in healthy rats. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 73-82.
  50. Robert P, Frenzel T, Factor C, et al. Methodological aspects for preclinical evaluation of gadolinium presence in brain tissue: critical appraisal and suggestions for harmonization. A joint initiative. Invest Radiol 2018; 53: 499–517.
  51. Robert P, Fingerhut S, Factor C, Vives V, Letien J. Sperling M, et al. One-year retention of gadoliniumin the brain: comparison of gadodiamide and gadoterate meglumine in a rodent model. Radiology 2018; 288: 424–433.
  52. Roberts DR, Lindhorst SM, Welsh CT, Maravilla KR, Herring MN, Braun KA, et al. High levels of gadolinium deposition in the skin of a patient with normal renal function. Invest Radiol 2016; 51: 280-289.
  53. Rogosnitzky M, Branch S. Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: a review of known and proposed mechanisms. Biometals 2016; 29: 365–376.
  54. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requard M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005; 40: 715–724.
  55. Semelka RC, Ramalho J, Vakharia A, Al Obaidy M, Burke LM, Jay M, et al.
    Gadolinium deposition disease: Initial description of a disease that has been around for a while. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34: 1383-1390.
  56. Sieber MA, Lengsfeld P, Frenzel T, Golfier S, Schmitt-Willich H, Siegmund F, et al. Preclinical investigation to compare different gadolinium-based contrast agents regarding their propensity to release gadolinium in vivo and to trigger nephrogenic systemic fibrosis- like lesions. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2164-2173.
  57. Smith AP, Marino M, Roberts J, Crowder JM, Castle J, Lowery L, Morton C, Hibberd MG, Evans PM. Clearance of gadolinium from the brain with no pathologic effect after repeated administration of gadodiamide in healthy rats: an analytical and histologic study. Radiology 2017; 282: 743-751.
  58. Taoka T, Naganawa S. Gadolinium-based contrast media, cerebrospinal fluid and the glymphatic system: possible mechanisms for the deposition of gadolinium in the brain. Magn Reson Med Sci 2018; 17: 111-119.
  59. Thakral C, Alhariri J, Abraham JL. Long-term retention of gadolinium in tissues from nephrogenic systemic fibrosis patient after multiple gadolinium-enhanced MRI scans: case report and implications. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2007; 2: 199-205.
  60. Thakral C, Abraham JL. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: histology and gadolinium detection.
    Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47: 841-853.
  61. Thomsen HS. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: A serious late adverse reaction to gadodiamide.
    Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 2619–2621.
  62. Thomsen HS, Marckmann P. Extracellular GBCA: differences in prevalence of NSF. Eur J Radiol 2008; 66: 180-183.
  63. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almén T, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 307-318.
  64. Tweedle MF, Wedeking P, Kumar K. Biodistribution of radiolabeled, formulated gadopentetate, gadoteridol, gadoterate, and gadodiamide in mice and rats. Invest Radiol 1995; 30: 372-380.
  65. Vidaud C, Bourgeois D, Meyer D. Bone as target organ for metals: the case of f-elements.
    Chem Res Toxicol 2012; 25: 1161-1175.
  66. Wahsner J, Gale EM, Rodríguez-Rodríguez A, Caravan P. Chemistry of MRI contrast agents: current challenges and new frontiers. Chem Rev. 2018 Oct 16. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00363.
  67. Wang YX, Schroeder J, Siegmund H, Idée JM, Fretellier N, Jestin-Mayer G, et al. Total gadolinium tissue deposition and skin structural findings following the administration of structurally different gadolinium chelates in healthy and ovariectomized female rats. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2015; 5: 534-545.
  68. White GW, Gibby WA, Tweedle MF. Comparison of Gd(DTPA-BMA) (Omniscan) versus Gd(HP-DO3A) (ProHance) relative to gadolinium retention in human bone tissue by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Invest Radiol 2006; 41: 272-278.

Autorisatiedatum en geldigheid

Laatst beoordeeld  : 28-11-2022

Laatst geautoriseerd  : 28-11-2022

Geplande herbeoordeling  : 01-12-2023

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

Methodological support

  • Abdollahi M. (Mohammadreza), advisor, Knowledge Institute of the Federation Medical Specialists
  • Labeur Y.J. (Yvonne), junior advisor, Knowledge Institute of the Federation Medical Specialists
  • Mostovaya I.M. (Irina), senior advisor, Knowledge Institute of the Federation Medical Specialists

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