These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Iomeprol and iopamidol in cardiac angiography: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison.
    Author: Fattori R, Piva R, Schicchi F, Pancrazi A, Gabrielli G, Marzocchi A, Piovaccari G, Blandini A, Magnani B.
    Journal: Eur J Radiol; 1994 May; 18 Suppl 1():S61-6. PubMed ID: 8020520.
    Abstract:
    During cardiac angiography, hemodynamic alterations and surface electrocardiographic changes are common, predictable and dose-related adverse reactions to radiocontrast media. High osmolality, inadequate sodium content and local transient hypocalcemia are thought to be the main mechanisms responsible for these untoward cardiovascular effects. The purpose of this double-blind, parallel-group trial was to compare the hemodynamic and electrocardiographic responses to cardiac and selective coronary artery injection of iomeprol 400 (400 mgI/ml) and iopamidol 370 (370 mgI/ml). One-hundred consenting adult inpatients were randomised to receive iomeprol 400 (41 males, nine females; mean age, 56.6 years) or iopamidol 370 (46 males, four females; mean age, 57.6 years). Both agents produced minor and transient hemodynamic and electrophysiological effects. Following left ventriculography, iopamidol 370 produced a significantly greater increase in LVEDP than iomeprol 400 (mean increases after first and second left ventriculogram: 2.5 and 4.6 mmHg with iomeprol 400, 3.3 and 9.9 mmHg with iopamidol 370, P = 0.027). The QT-interval was more affected by iopamidol 370 than by iomeprol 400. However, post-contrast prolongation of the QT-interval was not significant with either agent, nor were there any significant T-wave, ST-segment or RR-interval changes associated with the injection of the test compounds. No serious adverse events occurred throughout the study. Mild pain was complained by only one patient, while most patients reported mild to moderate sensation of heat. Image quality of the vast majority of the procedures was rated as good or excellent in both patient groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]