当前位置： SCI文献检索 > INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY期刊下所有文献 > A comparison of iopromide with iopamidol and iohexol for contrast-enhanced computed tomography.

A comparison of iopromide with iopamidol and iohexol for contrast-enhanced computed tomography.

Abstract：

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES:Iopromide is a new monomeric, nonionic contrast agent that exhibits low osmolality and low viscosity in high concentration in aqueous solutions. Double-blind, randomized clinical trials have established the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of iopromide for excretory urography, coronary angiography, routine and digital subtraction angiography, and phlebography. However, iopromide had not previously been evaluated in blinded clinical trials for contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). Thus, a double-blind, prospective randomized trial was performed to compare the efficacy, safety, adverse experience profile, and tolerance of iopromide to that of iopamidol and iohexol in patients requiring CECT of the head or body. METHODS:Of 190 patients entered into the study, 95 received iopromide and 95 received a comparator (iopamidol, n = 55; and iohexol, n = 40) at 300 mg I/mL. Efficacy, adverse experiences (AEs), and tolerance were measured, and a safety profile was obtained that monitored changes at 24 hours in physical examination, vital signs, hematologic profile, and blood chemistries. RESULTS:Efficacy was similar for all drugs with excellent/good visualization in 98.4% of studies. The total number of patients reporting AEs was equivalent (iopromide 13.8%, comparators 12.6%; P > .10). However, although 2.5% of patients in the iopromide and iopamidol groups had possibly related mild AEs, 15% receiving iohexol had related AEs, one of which was severe. Excellent tolerance was noted, with no patients reporting localized pain; there were low rates of mild to moderate warmth on injection (8.5% for iopromide versus 9.5% for comparators; P > .10). Safety profiles were comparable. Postprocedure, there were no significant changes or significant differences between groups, except for a significantly increased incidence of systolic blood pressure decrease by greater than 20 mm Hg at 24 hours in the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS:Iopromide has an efficacy, safety, and tolerance profile comparable to that of iopamidol and iohexol at 300 mg I/mL for head and body CECT. It may have a superior adverse experience profile to iohexol, but is similar to iopamidol. Thus, iopromide is a reasonable choice of nonionic contrast medium for all CECT procedures.

journal_name

Invest Radiol

journal_title

Investigative radiology

authors

Goldberg SN,Abrahams J,Drayer BP,Golding S,Bernardino M,Brunetti J

doi

10.1097/00004424-199405001-00015

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

1994-05-01 00:00:00

pages

S76-83; discussion S93

eissn

0020-9996

issn

1536-0210

journal_volume

29 Suppl 1

pub_type

临床试验,杂志文章,随机对照试验

在线工具

A comparison of iopromide with iopamidol and iohexol for contrast-enhanced computed tomography.