Skip to main content
Log in

Are there any differences in acute adverse reactions among five low-osmolar non-ionic iodinated contrast media?

  • Contrast Media
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thomsen HS, Dorph S (1993) High-osmolar and low-osmolar contrast media. Acta Radiol 34:205–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thomsen HS, Bush WH (1998) Adverse effects of contrast media. Incidence, prevention and management. Drug Saf 19:313–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Christiansen C, Pichler WJ, Skotland T (2000) Delayed allergy-like reactions to X-ray contrast media: mechanistic considerations. Eur Radiol 10:1965–1975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morcos SK, Thomsen HS (2001) Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media. Eur Radiol 11:1267–1275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Google Scholar 

  10. Geeter PD, Melchior H (1994) Iomeprol versus iopromide for intravenous urography. Br J Radiol 67:958–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giercksky KE (1986) Piroxicam and gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Med 81:2–5

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatsuya Gomi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1698-6

Keywords

Navigation