Iopamidol and meglumine diatrizoate: comparison of effects on patient discomfort during aortofemoral arteriography

Intravenous Injection of High and Medium Concentrations of Computed Tomography Contrast Media and Related Heat Sensation, Local Pain, and Adverse Reactions

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incidence of acute adverse reactions and degrees of heat sensation and local pain after intravenous injection of high and medium concentrations of iodinated contrast medium for computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

A prospective study was performed involving 729 patients who underwent contrast CT scans. High-concentration (370 mgI/mL) and medium-concentration (300 mgI/mL) iodinated contrast medium was assigned to 342 patients (group H, aged 20-90 years, mean = 59.8 years) and to 387 patients (group M, aged 20-95 years, mean = 61.7 years), respectively. An injection rate of contrast medium (1, 2, or 4 mL/s) at a base volume of 2 mL/kg of body weight was selected according to the protocols for the evaluated diseases and regions. Each patient was assessed for heat sensation and local pain at the injection site using a visual analog scale (ranging from none for 0 to severe for 10). Acute adverse reactions were recorded when they occurred.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient background factors, including age, sex, history of prior adverse reactions, and allergies, between the 2 groups. The score for heat sensation was significantly higher in group H than in group M (4.46 +/- 2.44 vs. 3.44 +/- 2.45; P < 0.0001 for heat sensation). The data did not show a higher incidence of adverse reactions in group H than in group M (5 [1.46%] of 342 patients vs. 2 [0.52%] of 387 patients; P = 0.26) or a higher score for local pain in group H than in group M (0.98 +/- 1.70 vs. 0.88 +/- 1.49; P = 0.66), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

High and medium concentrations of iodinated contrast medium can be used for CT study with comparable safety profiles even though heat sensation produced by the high-concentration CM is greater than that produced by the medium-concentration CM.

Iomeprol vs iopamidol in intraarterial peripheral digital subtraction angiography

The aim of this research was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of iomeprol, 150 mg iodine/mL, a new nonionic contrast medium, and iopamidol, 150 mg iodine/mg in intraarterial (IA) peripheral digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in 100 patients; a group of 40 patients were also submitted to a complete coagulation screening to check the influence of contrast media on blood clotting. The study was a comparative, double-blind clinical trial. The compound was assigned to each patient according to a randomization list. Small size (4-5 French) catheters were used in all patients to minimize arterial trauma and bedding time and to assess the quality of x-ray pictures in this condition. Vital signs, EKG tracings and laboratory parameters were monitored before and after the angiographic procedure; the coagulation screening included: thrombin time, prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, euglobulin lysis time, plasma thromboplastin antecedent, and plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI). Both contrast media did not produce any adverse reaction or clinically significant alteration of studied parameters; in the 40-patient group subjected to massive coagulative screening, no important alteration after contrast media administration was reported. The score for contrastographic efficacy was very good with both media with a prevalence of better results in the iomeprol group.

Low-osmolality contrast media: dosage comparison of ioversol and iohexol for cranial computed tomography

One hundred patients undergoing cranial computed tomography were evaluated in this prospective, randomized, double-blind comparative study. Patients received 50 mL of ioversol 320 (16 g iodine), 75 mL of ioversol 320 (24 g iodine), 100 mL of iohexol 240 (24 g iodine), 100 mL of iohexol 300 (30 g iodine) or 150 mL of iohexol 240 (36 g iodine). Twenty patients were enrolled in each treatment group. No patient in any treatment group experienced any contrast-media-related adverse reaction. Results of this study coupled with our prior work suggests that the lowest dose and optimal concentration of low-osmolality contrast media necessary to produce diagnostic cranial computed tomography is 32 g of iodine administered in a concentration of 320 mg/100 mL iodine.