Intensity Of Warmth Research Articles

Iodixanol, a new non-ionic, dimeric contrast medium in cardioangiography: a double-masked, parallel comparison with iopromide

Iodixanol (320 mg I/ml) was compared with iopromide (370 mg I/ml) in a double-masked, parallel group, randomised trial of 120 patients undergoing cardioangiography in order to evaluate and compare safety, tolerability and radiographic efficacy. The overall diagnostic information and radiographic density were mainly optimal and no differences between the contrast media were detected. No serious adverse events were reported in either group, and there were no clinically relevant changes in blood chemistry. A statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding discomfort during injection of contrast medium, the intensity of warmth being less for iodixanol (P = 0.003). Blood pressures and heart rate remained practically unchaged during coronary arteriography in both groups. During left ventriculography, the peak systolic pressure decreased after injection of iopromide (mean change ±SD: − 7.9 ± 11.1 mm Hg, P < 0.001), while there was no significant change after injection of iodixanol (mean change± SD: 0.9 ± 8.3 mm Hg). The results indicate that both contrast agents are effective, safe and well tolerated in cardioangiography, but administration of iodixanol results in a less intense sensation of warmth and a slightly better haemodynamic profile than does administration of iopromide.

Iodixanol in femoral arteriography (phase III): A comparative double-blind parallel trial between iodixanol and iopromide

Iodixanol is a new non-ionic, dimeric contrast medium (CM) which is formulated to be isotonic with blood in all clinically relevant concentrations. This is a report of a parallel, double-blind study comparing the safety and efficacy of iodixanol with iopromide (Ultravist) in aortofemoral arteriography. One hundred consecutive, eligible patients scheduled to undergo peripheral arteriography were entered into the study and randomly allocated to receive one or other CM. Radiographic quality, discomfort, adverse events, femoral blood flow and renal function were examined. Ninety-five patients were successfully included in the study. Radiographic quality (efficacy) was found to be similar in both groups. Three patients (6%) in the iodixanol group and five patients (11%) in the iopromide group reported adverse events. In this respect there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.48), and all adverse events were mild and transient. Forty-six (97%) patients in the iodixanol group and 45 (100%) patients in the iopromide group experienced a sensation of warmth (discomfort) in connection with one or more of the injections. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of discomfort in the two groups. However, the intensity of warmth was significantly milder following iodixanol than after iopromide (P = 0.003, two-sided Mantel-Haenszel test). The mean percentage increase in femoral blood flow was found to be less with iodixanol (43.4%) than with iopromide (96.3%) (P < 0.05, Student's t-test). Renal function was affected slightly after administration of both CM. Serum creatinine and creatinine clearance were affected more by iodixanol than by iopromide, while the excretion of tubular enzymes was more affected by iopromide. In conclusion, this comparison between iodixanol and iopromide showed both contrast media to be safe, effective and well tolerated and the only major difference between them was in their effect on femoral blood flow.