Universal use of nonionic iodinated contrast medium for CT: Evaluation of safety in a large urban teaching hospital

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 184, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 31-34

  Mortelé, Koenraad J ^a   Oliva, Maria Raquel ^a   Ondategui, Silvia ^a   Ros, Pablo R ^a   Silverman, Stuart G ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADRENALIN; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIPHENHYDRAMINE; IOPROMIDE; METHYLPREDNISOLONE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRONCHOSPASM; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIZZINESS; DRUG HYPERSENSITIVITY; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG USE; FACE EDEMA; HEART VENTRICLE TACHYCARDIA; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; HYPOTENSION; LARYNX EDEMA; LUNG EDEMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAUSEA; OUTPATIENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEIZURE; SKIN TOXICITY; SNEEZING; SYNCOPE; TACHYCARDIA; TEACHING HOSPITAL; THROAT DISEASE; URBAN AREA; URTICARIA; VOMITING;

EID: 11144328057     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840031     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Broussel R. Iopromide 300 and 370:meta-analysis of a randomized prospective clinical trial conducted in France in 1987 - overall results of tolerability and efficacy. Ann Radiol 1989;32:329-332
2. Goldstein HA, Jacob G, Wiggins JR. New clinical trial experience with iopromide. Invest Radiol 1994;29[suppl 2]:S208-210
3. Goldberg SN, Abrahams J, Drayer BP, Golding S, Bernardino M, Brunetti J A comparison of iopromide with iopamidol and iohexol for contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Invest Radiol 1994;29[suppl 2]:S76-S83
4. Skovgaard N, Jensen ER, Jakobsen KP. Iopromide versus diatrizoate: a comparative study of adverse reactions. Acta Radiol 1990;31:537-538
5. Hoogewoud HM, Neiss AC, Woessmer B. Double-blind randomized study comparing ioversol 300 versus iopromide 300 in abdominal computed tomography. Ann Radiol 1992;35:273-275
6. Faykus MH Jr., Cope C, Athanasoulis C, et al. Double-blind study of the safety, tolerance, and diagnostic efficacy of iopromide as compared with iopimadol and iohexol in patients requiring aortography and visceral angiography. Invest Radiol 1994;29[suppl 2]:S98-S101
7. Hoogewood HM, Woessmer B. Iobitridol 300 compared to iopromide 300:a double-blind randomized phase-III study of clinical tolerance in total body CT. Acta Radiol 1996;400:62-64
8. Kennedy C, Rickards D, Lee S, Sharp MB, Dawson P. A double-blind study comparing the efficiency, tolerance and renal effects of iopromide and iopamidol. Br J Radiol 1988;61:288-293
9. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS, Vavasour HM, O'Dea F, Kent G, Stone E. A comparison of nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents with ionic, high-osmolality agents during cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med 1992;326:431-436
10. Schmiedel E. Tolerability of non-ionic contrast media: results of a multicenter double blind study. Aktuelle Radiol 1992;2:148-152
11. Harding JR, Bertalozzi M, Spinazzi A. A randomized, double-blind trial of iomeprol and iopromide in intravenous excretory urography. Eur J Radiol 1994;18:S93-S96
12. Bergelson B, Bettman MA, Wexler L, Wilson R, Dyet J. Comparison of iopromide with iohexol and iopamidol in coronary arteriography and left ventriculography. Invest Radiol 1994;29[suppl 2]:S107-S111
13. de Geeter P, Melchior H. Iomeprol versus iopromide for intravenous urography. Br J Radiol 1994;67:958-963
14. Hunter TB, Dye J, Duval JF. Selective use of low-osmolality contrast agents for iv urography and CT: safety and effect on cost. AJR 1994;163:965-968
15. Encina JL, Marti-Bonmati L, Ronchera-Oms CL, Rodriguez V. 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. Eur Radiol 1997;7:S115-S119
16. Megibow AJ, Jacob G, Heiken JP, et al. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of volume of low osmolality contrast medium needed for routine helical abdominal CT. AJR 2001;176:583-589
17. Palmer FJ. The RACR survey of contrast media reactions: final report. Australas Radiol 1988;32:426-428
18. Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JM. Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. AJR 2001;176:1385-1388
19. Velasco Martin A, Perez Gonzalez E, Cortejoso Hernanadez F. Monitoring of adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media in in-patients and outpatients. Farm Clin 1996;13:596-609
20. Dawson P. Radiological contrast agents. In: Aronson JK, ed. Side effects of drugs: annual 21. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V., 1998:475-485
21. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese committee on the safety of contrast media. Radiology 1990;175:621-628
22. Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA, and Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Prevention to generalized reactions to contrast media: a consensus report and guidelines. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1720-1728