Iopentol (Imagopaque® 300) compared with iopromide (Ultravist® 300) in abdominal CT: A multi-centre monitoring trial assessing adverse events and diagnostic information results from 518 patients in Spain

European Radiology

Volumn 7, Issue SUPPL. 4, 1997, Pages

  Encina, J L ^a   Marti Bonmati L ^b   Ronchera Oms, C L ^c   Rodriguez V ^a  

^a Fresenius Medical Care Spain   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DR PESET   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Adverse events; Comparative study; Computed tomography (CT); Contrast media; Iopentol; Tolerance

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; DRUG DERIVATIVE; IODOBENZOIC ACID DERIVATIVE; IOHEXOL; IOPENTOL; IOPROMIDE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHASE 4 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAFETY; SPAIN;

CONTRAST MEDIA; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HUMANS; IOHEXOL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SAFETY; SPAIN; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TRIIODOBENZOIC ACIDS;

EID: 0242374068     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/pl00006875     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Andrew E, Sveen K, Lambrechts M, Lillevold PE (1990) Total iopentol profile. Overall results from clinical trials. In: Lærum F, Kendall B (eds) Iopentol. Clinical trials with a new non-ionic contrast medium. Excerpta Medica Int Congr Series vol 909. Elsevier, Amsterdam New York Oxford, pp 189-197
2. Skinnemoen K (1987) Physicochemical properties and degree of protein binding of iopentol. Acta Radiol [Suppl] 370: 33-36.
3. Caro JJ, Trindale E, McGregor M (1991) The risk of death and of severe nonfatal reactions with high- vs low-osmolality contrast media: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 156: 825-832
4. Chambers TP, Baron RL, Lush RM, Dodd GD, Miller WJ (1994) Hepatic CT enhancement: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents in the same patients. Radiology 190: 721-725
5. Chambers TP, Baron RL, Lush RM, Dodd GD, Miller WJ, Confer SR (1993) Hepatic CT enhancement: a method to demonstrate reproducibility. Radiology 188: 627-631
6. Heiken JP, Brink JA, McClennan BL, Sagel SS, Forman HP, DiCroce J (1993) Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT of the liver: comparison of contrast medium injection rates and uniphasic and biphasic injection protocols. Radiology 187: 327-331
7. Cox IH, Foley WD, Hoffmann GR (1991) Right window for dynamic hepatic CT. Radiology 181: 18-21
8. Silverman PM, Cooper C, Trock B, Garra BS, Davros WJ, Zeman RK (1995) The optimal temporal window for CT of the liver using a time-density analysis: implications for helical (spiral) CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 19: 73-79
9. Martí-Bonmatí L, Ronchera-Oms CL, Espinós MA, Jordán Y, Lucas A (1995) Assessing the effectiveness of x-ray contrast media for abdominal computed tomographic examinations: comparison of four low-osmolality agents. J Clin Pharm Ther 20: 75-81