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: [Contrast media in peripheral angiography: does cost reduction mean loss of quality and safety? A reevaluation based on a randomized double-blind comparative study of ioxaglate versus iopromide].
    Author: Lammer J, Winkelbauer F, Thurnher S, Wildling R, Farres MT, Woessmer B.
    Journal: Rofo; 1996 May; 164(5):432-6. PubMed ID: 8634406.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate whether meglumine-sodium-ioxaglate (Hexabrix) and iopromide (Ultravist) are identically appropriate for peripheral angiography. Outcome variables were pain, image quality and adverse events. METHODS: Sixty patients were included in a randomised double-blind study. In all patients an intraarterial digital subtraction angiography (i.a. DSA) of iliac and peripheral arteries was performed. RESULTS: Analysis of the study revealed no significant difference between both contrast media in terms of the main and additional outcome variables. In comparison to iopromide, ioxaglate caused milder pain sensations (VAS 4.70 vs. 7.76, p = 0.25). Mild adverse events were observed more frequently in ioxaglate angiography (11% vs. 0%, p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Both contrast media seem to be appropriate for peripheral angiography using DSA technique. Ioxaglate causes a cost reduction of about 20-35%. However, an increase of mild adverse reactions up to 11% to 15% has to be accepted.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]