JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1990; 16:871-877
© 1990 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hlatky, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bashore, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hlatky, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bashore, T.

Randomized comparison of the cost and effectiveness of iopamidol and diatrizoate as contrast agents for cardiac angiography

MA Hlatky, KG Morris, KS Pieper, CJ Davidson, SJ Schwab, and TM Bashore

Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost of low osmolarity, nonionic contrast agents for cardiac angiography, 443 patients were randomized to receive either iopamidol or diatrizoate. All adverse events that occurred within 24 h of the procedure were recorded prospectively by study personnel and classified according to previously determined criteria. Major events were defined as life threatening or requiring a procedure to treat, or both. Costs of the catheterization procedure, pharmacy, hospital laboratory and treatment of adverse events were determined on the basis of actual resource use. A total of 20 patients (8.5%) had major and 143 (61%) had minor adverse events with diatrizoate use; 10 patients (4.8%) had major and 53 (25%) had minor adverse events with iopamidol (p = 0.12 for major events; p less than 0.001 for total events). Most adverse events were treated fairly easily and inexpensively. The median overall cost was $186 higher for patients after iopamidol use compared with diatrizoate (p less than 0.0001), but all costs except the cost of the contrast agent were not significantly different between the two groups. Thus, patients who received iopamidol for cardiac angiography had a significantly lower rate of adverse events than those who received diatrizoate, but this difference was achieved at a considerably high overall cost.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
B. J. Barrett, P. S. Parfrey, R. N. Foley, and A. S. Detsky
An Economic Analysis of Strategies for the Use of Contrast Media for Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization
Med Decis Making, October 1, 1994; 14(4): 325 - 335.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1990 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.