BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (1995) 68, 973-978
© 1995 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-813-973

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verow, P
Right arrow Articles by Kjærsgaard, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Verow, P
Right arrow Articles by Kjærsgaard, P

A comparison of iodixanol with iopamidol in aorto-femoral angiography

P Verow, FRCR 1 J ØYstein Nossen, MSc Pharm, PhD 2 A Sheppick, DCR, SRR 3 and P Kjærsgaard, MSc 4

1 Department of Radiology, York District Hospital, Wigginton Road, York YO3 7HE, UK 2 Nycomed Imaging AS, PO Box 4220 Torshov, 0401 Oslo, Norway 3 Nycomed Ltd, 2111 Coventry Road, Sheldon, Birmingham B26 3EA, UK 4 Medstat Research AS, 2000 Lillestrøm, Norway

This double-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical investigation in 140 consecutive patients undergoing aorto-femoral arteriography was carried out to compare iodixanol (Visipaque®) 270 mgI ml–1 with iopamidol (Iopamiro®) 300 mgI ml–1. The aims of the study were to compare adverse events and discomfort, clinical chemistry parameters in blood, haemodynamics and diagnostic information of the angiograms in the two groups. The main parameter for statistical analysis was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for overall discomfort experienced by the patients during the examination. 134 patients, 69 and 65 receiving iodixanol and iopamidol, respectively, were examined according to the protocol and included in the evaluation. The two groups of patients were judged to be comparative. Statistically significant milder discomfort was felt with iodixanol than with iopamidol (p=0.0001); mean VAS values 16 mm and 51mm, respectively. Pain was reported far less frequently after iodixanol than after iopamidol (7.4% versus 50.8%) whereas sensation of warmth was less intense after iodixanol than after iopamidol. Four patients in the iodixanol group and two in the iopamidol group reported transient, non-serious adverse events. The difference was not statistically significant (p=0.68). Systolic blood pressure was affected to a slightly greater degree after injection of iopamidol than after injection of iodixanol. Measurements of diastolic blood pressure, as well as clinical chemistry parameters in blood, revealed no changes of clinical importance, and all arteriograms performed were of diagnostic value. The conclusion is that iodixanol 270 mgI ml–1 is as efficacious as iopamidol 300 mgI ml–1, but produces less discomfort during arteriography. As such, iodixanol is a good alternative to iopamidol in aorto-femoral angiography.

Received for publication July 6, 1994. Accepted for publication May 5, 1995.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
S. Goldfarb, P. A. McCullough, J. McDermott, and S. B. Gay
Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: Specialty-Specific Protocols for Interventional Radiology, Diagnostic Computed Tomography Radiology, and Interventional Cardiology
Mayo Clin. Proc., February 1, 2009; 84(2): 170 - 179.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
M. C. Heinrich, L. Haberle, V. Muller, W. Bautz, and M. Uder
Nephrotoxicity of Iso-osmolar Iodixanol Compared with Nonionic Low-osmolar Contrast Media: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials1
Radiology, January 1, 2009; 250(1): 68 - 86.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. J. Kuhn, N. Chen, D. V. Sahani, D. Reimer, E. J. R. van Beek, J. P. Heiken, and G. J. So
The PREDICT Study: A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy After Low- or Isoosmolar Contrast Agent Exposure
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2008; 191(1): 151 - 157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CJASNHome page
E. Ritz
Cardiovascular Literature--Beyond Nephrology
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2008; 3(2): 317 - 323.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
R. J. Solomon, M. K. Natarajan, S. Doucet, S. K. Sharma, C. S. Staniloae, R. E. Katholi, J. L. Gelormini, M. Labinaz, A. E. Moreyra, and the Investigators of the CARE Study
Cardiac Angiography in Renally Impaired Patients (CARE) Study: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease
Circulation, June 26, 2007; 115(25): 3189 - 3196.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
P. A. McCullough, M. E. Bertrand, J. A. Brinker, and F. Stacul
A Meta-Analysis of the Renal Safety of Isosmolar Iodixanol Compared With Low-Osmolar Contrast Media
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 15, 2006; 48(4): 692 - 699.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1995 by the British Institute of Radiology.