Abstract
Objectives
The differences regarding adverse reactions in different low-osmolar non-ionic contrast media had not been investigated previously. Thus, the aims of this study were to identify differences in the incidence of adverse reactions in five different low-osmolar non-ionic contrast media.
Methods
We prospectively recorded all adverse events associated with five different low-osmolar non-ionic contrast media used in 8,931 consecutive patients for CT. Patients were randomly assigned to five groups: iomeprol 300 mgI/ml, iopamidol 300 mgI/ml, iohexol 300 mgI/ml, iopromide 300 mgI/ml and ioversol 320 mgI/ml.
Results
Adverse events were observed in 241 patients (2.7%). The incidence of acute adverse reactions was significantly higher in the following groups: (1) iomeprol (3.9%) and iopromide (3.5%) groups, (2) patients aged 59 years or less (4.5%) compared with those aged 60 years or over (1.9%), (3) the first period (3.5%) compared with the late period (2.3%), (4) those with a past history of adverse reactions to contrast media (11.2%), and (5) patients receiving contrast media for the first time (3.3%) compared with those had received it previously (2.0%).
Conclusion
The incidence of acute adverse reactions may be reduced in younger patients by using iopamidol, iohexol and ioversol.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese committee on safety of contrast media. Radiology 175:621–628
Thomsen HS, Dorph S (1993) High-osmolar and low-osmolar contrast media. Acta Radiol 34:205–209
Thomsen HS, Bush WH (1998) Adverse effects of contrast media. Incidence, prevention and management. Drug Saf 19:313–324
Christiansen C, Pichler WJ, Skotland T (2000) Delayed allergy-like reactions to X-ray contrast media: mechanistic considerations. Eur Radiol 10:1965–1975
Morcos SK, Thomsen HS (2001) Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media. Eur Radiol 11:1267–1275
Schild HS, Kuhl CK, Hubner-Steiner U, Bohm I, Speck U (2006) Adverse events after unenhanced and monomeric and dimeric contrast-enhanced CT: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Radiology 240:56–64
Kennedy BC, Rickards D, Lee S, Sharp MB, Dawson P (1988) A double-blind study comparing the efficiency, tolerance and renal effects of iopromide and iopamidol. Br J Radiol 61:288–293
Goldberg SN, Abrahams J, Drayer BP, Golding S, Bernardino M, Brunetti J (1994) A comparison of iopromide with iopamidol and iohexol for contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Invest Radiol 29:76–83
Harding JR, Bertazzoli M, Spinazzi A (1994) A randomised, double-blind trial of iomeprol and iopromide in intravenous excretory urography. Eur J Radiol 18:93–96
Geeter PD, Melchior H (1994) Iomeprol versus iopromide for intravenous urography. Br J Radiol 67:958–963
Hoogewoud HM, Woessmer B (1996) Iobitridol 300 compared to iopromide 300—a double-blind randomized phase-III study of clinical tolerance in total body CT. Acta Radiol 37:62–64
Sutton AGC, Finn P, Campbell PG et al (2003) Early and late reactions following the use of iopamidol 340, iomeprol 350 and iodixanol 320 in cardiac catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol 15:133–138
Mortele KJ, Oliva MR, Ondategui S, Ros PR, Silverman SG (2005) Universal use of nonionic iodinated contrast medium for CT: evaluation of safety in large urban teaching hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:31–34
Giercksky KE (1986) Piroxicam and gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Med 81:2–5
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gomi, T., Nagamoto, M., Hasegawa, M. et al. Are there any differences in acute adverse reactions among five low-osmolar non-ionic iodinated contrast media?. Eur Radiol 20, 1631–1635 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1698-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1698-6