Articles Vol. 67 No. 8 28/08/2026

SERVICE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING DEPARTMENT AT THE NATIONAL HOSPITAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY IN 2025 AND ASSOCIATED INFLUENCING FACTORS

Tran Ngoc Thinh1,2, Le Cong Thuan3,4, Vu Viet Tuong5,6, Nguyen Tien Manh3,4, Pham Van Khiet3,4, Nguyen Duc Chinh3,4, Duong Thi Thu3,4, Nguyen Viet Quy3,4, Nguyen Ba Sy1,2
1 National Hospital of Endocrinology
2 Bệnh viện Nội tiết Trung ương
3 Vinmec Times City International General Hospital
4 Bệnh viện đa khoa quốc tế Vinmec Times city Hà Nội
5 Vinmec Central Park International General Hospital
6 Bệnh viện đa khoa quốc tế Vinmec Central Park
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67i8.6301
29 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Introduction: With the establishment of high-technology centers around the world, including in Vietnam, modern medical equipment and advanced imaging systems have been widely developed. Contrast agents are substances used in diagnostic imaging procedures such as CT and MRI to enhance visualization and improve diagnostic accuracy. Currently, co-ordinated contrast media are the most used because they are considered relatively safe compared with other types of contrast agents.

Objective: To describe the indications, patient characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and to investigate some adverse reactions following contrast administration as well as several factors associated with the use of contrast media among patients at the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National Hospital of Endocrinology in 2025.

Methodology: A cross-sectional descriptive study combining qualitative and quantitative analyses to assess the service responsiveness of the Diagnostic Imaging Department at the National Hospital of Endocrinology.

Results: The contrast Omnipaque 350 mg I/ml (Iohexol) was the most used (85%), followed by Ultravist 300 mg I/ml (Iopromide) (15%). The average administered dose ranged from 65–75 ml per examination. Comparison with the James formula, used to estimate the recommended dose based on body weight, showed that the actual administered dose was equivalent to the calculated dose and did not exceed the recommended limit, thereby ensuring safety and minimizing the risk of contrast-induced nephrotoxicity.

Most patients tolerated the contrast media well, with only a small proportion experiencing adverse reactions after injection. Specifically, 68.7% of patients had no significant symptoms, apart from transient warmth; 22.1% experienced mild reactions such as a generalized warm sensation, nausea–vomiting, or a metallic taste in the mouth; and 1% developed moderate or severe reactions, including urticaria, itching, dyspnea, or mild hypotension. However, all reactions were promptly recognized and appropriately managed, and no severe complications or deaths were recorded.

Patients with a history of drug allergies or underlying chronic diseases (such as diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, or hypertension) had a significantly higher incidence of adverse reactions compared with those without risk factors (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, factors such as sex, educational level, financial capacity, understanding of the imaging procedure, and length of hospital stay did not affect the use of contrast media among patients.

Conclusion: The use of contrast media in computed tomography (CT) examinations at the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National Hospital of Endocrinology was found to be within safe limits and ensured diagnostic effectiveness. Adverse reactions following contrast injection at the National Hospital of Endocrinology were mostly mild, occurred at a low frequency, and were well controlled in accordance with established procedures and international standards.

References
[1]
World Health Organization, Diagnostic Imaging Services, Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016, pages 11-22. Google Scholar
[2]
American College of Radiology, ACR Manual on Contrast Media, Version 10.3. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2017, pages 23-33. Google Scholar
[3]
European Society of Urogenital Radiology, ESUR Guidelines on Contrast Media, Vienna: European Society of Urogenital Radiology; 2018, pages 43-55. Google Scholar
[4]
Toshihiro Katayama, Yamaguchi H, Kozuka T, et al, Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media, Radiology, 1990;175(3):621-628. Google Scholar
[5]
Trung tâm DI & ADR Quốc gia Việt Nam, Báo cáo tổng kết hoạt động cảnh giác dược giai đoạn 2006–2017, Hà Nội; 2018, tr 45-60. Google Scholar
[6]
Nguyễn Văn Hiệp và cs, Sử dụng thuốc cản quang trong chụp cắt lớp vi tính tại Bệnh viện Bạch Mai. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam. 2021, tr 34-56. Google Scholar
[7]
Toshihiro Katayama et al, Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology. 1990; 175:621-628. Google Scholar
[8]
Kyongtae Bae, Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing, Radiology, 2010, pages 45-55. Google Scholar
[9]
Hiroshi Takagi et al, Weight-based dosing of iodinated contrast media in CT, Japanese Journal of Radiology, 2017, pages 55-62. Google Scholar
[10]
Seung Hwan Lee et al, Gender differences in contrast media hypersensitivity, Korean Journal of Radiology, 2021. Google Scholar