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


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1992; 19:899-906
© 1992 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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Gertz, E.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gertz, E.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, S., Jr

Adverse reactions of low osmolality contrast media during cardiac angiography: a prospective randomized multicenter study

EW Gertz, JA Wisneski, R Miller, M Knudtson, J Robb, L Dragatakis, KF Browne Jr, G Vetrovec, and SC Smith Jr

Department of Medicine, University of California.

A multicenter study was performed to determine the incidence of adverse reactions to two contrast media with similar low osmolality during cardiac angiography. The study was of a randomized double-blind design comparing ioxaglate (an ionic dimer) and iopamidol (a nonionic compound) and included 500 patients; 250 patients received ioxaglate and 250 iopamidol. There were 58 adverse reactions attributed to the contrast media in the ioxaglate group and 29 in the iopamidol group (p less than 0.001). Chest pain occurred in 11 patients in the ioxaglate group compared with 5 in the iopamidol group (p = 0.123). Nausea or vomiting was present in 20 and 2 patients, respectively (p less than 0.0003). Allergic adverse reactions, such as bronchospasm, urticaria and itching, occurred in 15 of the ioxaglate group and only 1 of the patients receiving iopamidol (p less than 0.0007). Fifty-two patients in the ioxaglate group had a known allergic history (not to contrast medium) or asthma, whereas 77 receiving iopamidol had a similar history. Seven of the 52 ioxaglate-treated patients developed an allergic adverse reaction compared with none of the 77 in the iopamidol group (p = 0.001). Of 41 patients receiving ioxaglate who were premedicated with diphenhydramine, 4 had an allergic adverse event. In the iopamidol group 45 patients received similar premedication and none had an allergic adverse reaction (p less than 0.03). Thus, this multicenter study shows that adverse reactions occur more often with ioxaglate than with iopamidol and that patients with an allergic history have a greater risk with ioxaglate therapy compared with iopamidol.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JWatch GeneralHome page
USE OF NONIONIC CONTRAST MEDIA MAY REDUCE ANGIOGRAPHY COMPLICATIONS
Journal Watch (General), April 7, 1992; 1992(407): 5 - 5.
[Full Text]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1992 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.