Evaluation of "Gastromiro" for bowel opacification during computed tomography: comparison with diatrizoate and barium sulphate

Iopamidol as an oral contrast media for computed tomography: a taste comparison to iohexol, diatrizoate sodium, and barium sulfate

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to compare the palatability of iopamidol and iohexol.

METHODS

This was a blinded and randomized trial in which fifty healthy subjects taste tested iopamidol (Isovue, Bracco Diagnostics), iohexol (Omnipaque, GE Healthcare), diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (Gastrografin, Bracco Diagnostics), and barium sulfate suspension 2.1% w/v, 2.0% w/w (READI-CAT2, E-Z-EM). Participants scored palatability on a continuous scale from 0 to 40 (0 = intolerable, 10 = unpleasant but tolerable, 20 = neutral, 30 = kind of like, 40 = strongly like).

RESULTS

Mean scores (SD/SEM) for the contrast agents (n = 50) were iopamidol = 21.0 (8.4/1.2); iohexol = 21.8 (7.1/1.0); Gastrografin = 16.8 (9.6/1.4); and barium = 23.7 (9.1/1.3). One-way ANOVA equality of means test shows rejection of the hypothesis that the means are equal (F* = 6.550, p = .000). Post hoc testing demonstrates Gastrografin to be significantly less preferred to barium (p = .000) and iohexol (p = .012). No difference was found between iopamidol and iohexol (p = .959). One-way ANOVA equality of means test of just iopamidol, iohexol, and barium does not reject the hypothesis that means are equal (F* = 1.778 and p = .174).

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference in palatability between iopamidol and iohexol, supporting the use of iopamidol as a viable alternative to iohexol as an oral contrast agent.

Oral contrast media for body CT: Comparison of diatrizoate sodium and iohexol for patient acceptance and bowel opacification

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to determine whether a difference in patient preference exists between iohexol (Omnipaque) and diatrizoate sodium (Gastroview) as oral contrast medium for abdominal-pelvic CT. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether there are significant differences in bowel opacification and adverse effect profile for the two agents.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

From August 2007 through March 2009, 300 patients were enrolled in this prospective study after informed consent was obtained. Eligible patients were identified from those scheduled for outpatient abdominal-pelvic CT. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of two oral contrast agents in a double-blinded fashion. Subjects graded the taste using a 5-point scale, and data regarding demographics, total volume, and adverse effects were collected. A direct comparison of 30 mL of each of the two diluted agents in randomized order was then performed. CT images were graded for bowel opacification by two blinded abdominal radiologists.

RESULTS

Of 287 subjects who expressed a preference, 233 patients (81%) preferred dilute iohexol compared with 54 patients (19%) who preferred dilute diatrizoate sodium (p < 0.001). Ten patients had no preference, and three patients did not complete the taste comparison study. No difference in bowel opacification was identified between the oral contrast agents (p = 0.27), nor was there a significant difference in adverse effects (p = 0.352).

CONCLUSION

Patents preferred dilute iohexol over dilute diatrizoate sodium for oral contrast for abdominal-pelvic CT. There was no significant difference in bowel opacification or adverse effect profile.