Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1985; 6:785-791
© 1985 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 Morris, D.
Right arrow Articles by Langberg, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Morris, D.
Right arrow Articles by Langberg, J.

Potentiation by nifedipine and diltiazem of the hypotensive response after contrast angiography

DL Morris, JA Wisneski, EW Gertz, M Wexman, R Axelrod, and JJ Langberg

Arterial hypotension has been demonstrated after left ventriculography using currently available ionic contrast agents. This adverse hemodynamic response is significantly decreased with the newer nonionic contrast agents. Calcium channel antagonists also produce a hypotensive response. The potentially accentuated hypotensive response after bolus contrast angiography in patients receiving the calcium antagonists nifedipine and diltiazem was evaluated. Three contrast agents were compared: two ionic agents (Renografin-76 and Hypaque-76) and a nonionic agent (iopamidol). The hemodynamic response after left ventriculography was assessed in 125 patients, 65 receiving nifedipine or diltiazem and 60 not receiving these drugs. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in all patient groups. The hypotensive response was significantly greater after left ventriculography with the ionic agents than with the nonionic agent. In those patients receiving nifedipine or diltiazem, the hypotensive response after bolus contrast angiography using the ionic agents occurred earlier after contrast injection (4.2 +/- 3.1 versus 12.9 +/- 6.0 seconds, p less than 0.0001), was more profound (maximal decrease in systolic arterial pressure, 48.5 +/- 13.9 versus 36.9 +/- 13.1 mm Hg, p less than 0.001) and was more prolonged (62.3 +/- 11.0 versus 36.4 +/- 12.0 seconds, p less than 0.0001) than in patients not receiving these drugs. A comparison of the two ionic contrast agents showed no significant difference in the hypotensive response. There was no difference in the hemodynamic response after angiography among patients receiving iopamidol alone and those receiving iopamidol and calcium antagonists. Thus, patients receiving the calcium antagonists diltiazem and nifedipine and undergoing left ventriculography with ionic contrast agents are at added risk for accentuation and prolongation of the hypotensive response.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
D. M. Lang, M. B. Alpern, P. F. Visintainer, and S. T. Smith
Elevated Risk of Anaphylactoid Reaction From Radiographic Contrast Media Is Associated With Both {beta}-Blocker Exposure and Cardiovascular Disorders
Arch Intern Med, September 13, 1993; 153(17): 2033 - 2040.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Pharmacy PracticeHome page
D. P. Swanson and R. W. Jurgens
Radiopaque Contrast Media: The Role of the Pharmacist
Journal of Pharmacy Practice, January 1, 1989; 2(3): 162 - 170.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
Drugs Five Years Later: Nifedipine in Myocardial Ischemia, Systemic Hypertension, and Other Cardiovascular Disorders
Ann Intern Med, November 1, 1986; 105(5): 714 - 729.
[Abstract] [PDF]



 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement