BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 Hoffmann, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Krause, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hoffmann, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Krause, W.

The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 73, Issue 867 248-255, Copyright © 2000 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Haemostatic effects of low osmolar non-ionic and ionic contrast media: a double-blind comparative study

JJ Hoffmann, AV Tielbeek and W Krause
Department of Clinical Laboratories, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized study the effects of a non-ionic contrast medium (Iopromide) on the haemostatic system were compared with those of a low osmolar ionic medium (Ioxaglate). The aim was to investigate in vivo whether a non-ionic contrast agent is less anticoagulant or more pro-thrombotic than an ionic medium. A large number of haemostatic parameters, including activation markers, were measured. Either Iopromide (n = 16; median volume 102 ml; 95% confidence interval 90-108 ml) or Ioxaglate (n = 15; median 105 ml; 95% confidence interval 95-114 ml) was given to 31 patients scheduled for abdominal and femoral arteriography. Blood for laboratory investigations was collected before, and 5 and 30 min after, administering the contrast medium. Indications for activation of coagulation and platelets were already found in nearly 50% of the patients before any contrast medium was given. Both Iopromide and Ioxaglate caused further increases in thrombin-antithrombin complex, prothrombin fragments 1 + 2 and beta-thromboglobulin. The degree of activation was similar for both agents. Anticoagulant effects were not observed. The haemorheological effects were compatible with haemodilution by 5-8%, again without differences between the contrast agents. Contrary to the findings from in vitro studies, we found no significant differences between the effects of the non-ionic Iopromide and the ionic Ioxaglate on coagulation and platelets. Both agents activated these systems to a limited, but identical, degree. Our results support the notion that the catheterization procedure per se may represent a source of haemostatic activation and that the ionic contrast agent studied has insufficient anticoagulant effect to prevent clotting activation being induced by the contrast medium.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
A D Blann, R Adams, R Ashleigh, S Naser, U Kirkpatrick, and C N McCollum
Changes in endothelial, leucocyte and platelet markers following contrast medium injection during angiography in patients with peripheral artery disease
Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2001; 74(885): 811 - 817.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2000 by the British Institute of Radiology.