Abstract
A double-blind clinical trial was performed in 61 adults in an attempt to compare the safety and efficacy of an ionic with a nonionic contrast agent in peripheral angiography. Objective clinical (vital signs) and laboratory factors (complete blood count, serum electrolytes, serum chemistry, urinalysis, and urine chemistry) were monitored before, during, and after the examination on each patient. There was no statistically significant difference in pre- and posttest laboratory and clinical parameters between those patients who received ionic and those who received nonionic contrast material. Data also were collected to evaluate pain and radiographic quality. The most striking finding was the marked diminution of perceived pain in those patients who received nonionic contrast material compared with those who did not. The data suggest that nonionic contrast agents are at least as safe as the ionic agents currently in use and produce an examination of equal quality with considerably less patient discomfort.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
