Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ioversol for intravenous urography: A comparison study

  • Published:
Urologic radiology

Abstract

A new nonionic, low-osmolar iodinated contrast media, ioversol, was compared with another low-osmolar, nonionic contrast media, iohexol, in 80 patients undergoing intravenous urography. There were 40 patients in each contrast group. Patients were assessed for changes in vital signs, patient tolerance (heat and pain), and other adverse effects. Double-blind evaluation was also performed for comparison of the urogram image quality. There were no severe, life-threatening reactions for either contrast group. Ten patients (25%) receiving ioversol and seven (17.5%) receiving iohexol perceived body heat related to the injection of contrast material. Two patients (5%) in each group experienced mild nausea. Two patients (5%) of the ioversol group noted unpleasant taste, and two patients (5%) of the iohexol group complained of headache. Vital signs remained stable without significant change in both groups, and image quality was considered equivalent. The results indicate that the two contrast agents are equivalent in image quality, safety, and incidence of adverse effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bettmann MA: Angiographic contrast agents: conventional and new media compared.AJR 139:787–794, 1982

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Winfield AC, Dray RJ, Kirchner FK Jr, Muhletaler CA, Price RR: Iohexol for excretory urography: a comparative study.AJR 41:571–573, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rankin RN, Hong Tai Eng FW: Iohexol vs. diatrizoate: a comparative study in intravenous urography.Invest Radiol 20 (suppl):S112-S114, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Spataro RF, Katzberg RW, Fischer HW, McMannis MJ: High-dose clinical urography with the low-osmolality contrast agent Hexabrix: comparison with a conventional contrast agent.Radiology 161:9–14, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dahlstrom K, Shaw DD, Clauss W, Andrew E, Kari S: Summary of U.S. and European intravascular experience with iohexol based on the clinical trial program.Invest Radiol 20 (suppl):S117-S121, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cochran ST, Ballard JW, Katzberg RW, Barbaric ZL, Spataro R, Iwamoto K, Lee JJ: Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography: a double-blind clinical study.AJR 115:523–527, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobsson BF, Jorulf H, Kalantar MS, Narasimham DL: Nonionic versus ionic contrast media in intravenous urography: clinical trial in 1,000 consecutive patients.Radiology 167:601–605, 1988

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kinnison ML, Powe NR, Steinberg EP: Results of randomized controlled trials of low- versus high-osmolality contrast media.Radiology 70:381–389, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  9. Powe NR, Kinnison ML, Steinberg EP: Quality assessment of randomized control trials of contrast media.Radiology 170:377–380, 1989

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McClennan BL, Heiken JP, Lee JKT, James MA: Computed body tomography with a new nonionic contrast agent: comparison of ioversol with sodium meglumine diatrizoate.Invest Radiol 24 (suppl):S35-S38, 1989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grassi CJ, Bettmann MA, Finkelstein J, Reagan K: Ioversol: double-blind study of a new low osmolar contrast agent for peripheral and visceral arteriography.Invest Radiol 24:133–137, 1989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Reagan K, Bettmann MA, Finkelstein J, Ganz P, Grassi CJ: Double-blind study of a new nonionic contrast agent for cardiac angiography.Radiology 167:409–413, 1988

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dawson P: Chemotoxicity of contrast media and clinical adverse effects: a review.Invest Radiol 20(suppl):S84-S91, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Laerum F: Injurious effects of contrast media on human vascular endothelium.Invest Radiol 20(suppl):S98-S99, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Salem DN, Findlay SR, Isner JM, Konstam MA, Cohen PF: Comparison of histamine release effects of ionic and nonionic radiographic contrast media.Am J Med 80:382–384, 1986

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dray RJ, Winfield AC, Muhletaler CA, Kirchner FK Jr: Advantages of non-ionic contrast agents in adult urography.Urology 24:297–299, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stake G, Smevik B: Iohexol and metrizamide for urography in infants and children.Invest Radiol 20(suppl):S115-S116, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Golman K, Almen T: Contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity: survey and present state.Invest Radiol 20(suppl):S92-S97, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwab SJ, Hlatky MA, Pieper KS, Davidson CJ, Morris KG, Skelton TN, Bashore TM: Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of a nonionic and an ionic radiographic contrast agent.N Engl J Med 320:149–153, 1989

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Reuter SR: The use of conventional vs low-osmolar contrast agents: a legal analysis.AJR 151:529–531, 1988

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. White RI Jr, Halden WJ Jr: Liquid gold: low-osmolality contrast media.Radiology 159:559–560, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Evens RG: Economic impact of low-osmolality contrast agents on radiology procedures and departments.Radiology 162:267–268, 1987

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. McClennan BL: Low-osmolality contrast media: premises and promises.Radiology 162:1–8, 1987

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Grainger RG: The clinical and financial implications of the low-osmolar radiological contrast media (correspondence).Clin Radiol 35:251–252, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology & Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Alan J. Kaufman M.D. & Alan C. Winfield

  2. Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Raoul Concepcion, Fred K. Kirchner & W. Scott McDougal

Authors
  1. Alan J. Kaufman M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raoul Concepcion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fred K. Kirchner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Scott McDougal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alan C. Winfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaufman, A.J., Concepcion, R., Kirchner, F.K. et al. Ioversol for intravenous urography: A comparison study. Urol Radiol 12, 56–60 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02923968

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02923968

Key words

Search

Navigation