Abstract
A new nonionic, low-osmolar iodinated contrast media, ioversol, was compared with another low-osmolar, nonionic contrast media, iohexol, in 80 patients undergoing intravenous urography. There were 40 patients in each contrast group. Patients were assessed for changes in vital signs, patient tolerance (heat and pain), and other adverse effects. Double-blind evaluation was also performed for comparison of the urogram image quality. There were no severe, life-threatening reactions for either contrast group. Ten patients (25%) receiving ioversol and seven (17.5%) receiving iohexol perceived body heat related to the injection of contrast material. Two patients (5%) in each group experienced mild nausea. Two patients (5%) of each group experienced noted unpleasant taste, and two patients (5%) of the iohexol group complained of headache. Vital signs remained stable without significant change in both groups, and image quality was considered equivalent. The results indicate that the two contrast agents are equivalent in image quality, safety, and incidence of adverse effects.
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.
