Background/Objectives: Secondary traumatic stress (STS) affects healthcare professionals indirectly exposed to patients’ trauma, and emergency personnel may be particularly vulnerable. Evidence from Romania is limited. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey (July–August 2025) among emergency medical professionals working across the integrated emergency care system in Timisoara, Romania (prehospital ambulance/SMURD services and hospital Emergency Department). Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) symptoms were measured using the 17-item Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS; item coding 1–5). We summarized STSS total/subscale scores and reliability, classified total scores into severity categories (0–68 metric), compared scores by workplace, sex, and professional role, and examined associations with age and years of experience. Results: The analytic sample included 145 participants (49.0% women), with a median age of 44 years [33–50] and median professional experience of 10 years [5–15]. Mean total STSS was 36.4 (SD 11.9; range 17–66) and internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92). Most participants were classified as little/no STS (77.2%), followed by mild (12.4%), moderate (5.5%), high (4.1%), and severe (0.7%). STSS scores did not differ significantly between ambulance service and ED/UPU staff. Women reported higher total STSS than men (39.0 vs. 33.9; p = 0.010), with significant differences for intrusion (p = 0.035) and arousal (p = 0.004). Role differences were significant for total STSS, intrusion, and arousal (p ≤ 0.031), with nurses scoring higher than ambulance drivers/attendants in post hoc comparisons. Years of experience showed small positive correlations with total STSS (r = 0.18, p = 0.032) and intrusion (r = 0.21, p = 0.010); age was associated with intrusion only (r = 0.22, p = 0.008). Conclusions: In this Romanian emergency care cohort, most participants reported low STS severity, but a clinically relevant minority had moderate-to-severe symptoms. Higher symptom burden among women and nurses suggests groups that may benefit from targeted monitoring and support within the integrated emergency system.

Background: Iodinated contrast media are essential for oncologic imaging but raise specific safety concerns because cancer patients are often exposed to repeated contrast-enhanced computed tomography, nephrotoxic drugs, immune-modulating therapies, and, in selected cases, radioiodine-dependent diagnostic or therapeutic pathways. Methods: We performed a narrative review based on an exploratory search followed by a focused search targeting iodinated contrast use in oncology-related settings. Studies were included if they addressed renal risk and post-contrast acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity and acute adverse reactions, or thyroid dysfunction with radioiodine-related implications. We also considered clinically relevant studies on drug interactions, isotope studies, and laboratory confounding. Results: The evidence base was methodologically heterogeneous, with renal safety as the predominant domain. Kidney injury after contrast-enhanced imaging in cancer patients appeared frequently multifactorial, supporting the broader concept of post-contrast acute kidney injury rather than automatic attribution to contrast alone. Hypersensitivity reactions to modern nonionic iodinated contrast media were generally uncommon, with severe reactions rare, although immune-modulating therapies may alter risk. Thyroid-related effects were usually transient but relevant in patients with thyroid autonomy and in differentiated thyroid carcinoma, where contrast exposure may affect scintigraphy and radioiodine planning. Conclusions: In oncology, iodinated contrast use requires individualized, field-specific risk stratification instead of reflexive avoidance.