Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gastrointestinal Iodinated Contrast Agents

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medical Imaging Contrast Agents: A Clinical Manual

  • 1036 Accesses

Abstract

Oral contrast agents are categorized as “positive” (radiodense) or “neutral” (water attenuation). Positive agents are administered to opacify the bowel lumen and thus to improve the differentiation of bowel from non-bowel structures. The two main classes of positive oral contrast agents are barium sulfate suspensions and water-soluble iodinated contrast media. Enterography with CT and MRI combines neutral or low-attenuation oral contrast agents with intravenous contrast in order to evaluate the small bowel in patients with Crohn’s disease, small bowel polyps or malignancy, vascular lesions of the small bowel wall, and gastrointestinal bleeding and extraenteric structures. This chapter summarizes physical properties, clinical uses, and adverse effects of oral contrast agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Winklhofer S, Lin WC, Wang ZJ, Behr SC, Westphalen AC, Yeh BM. Comparison of positive oral contrast agents for abdominopelvic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212:1037–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kielar AZ, Patlas MN, Katz DS. Oral contrast for CT in patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal and pelvic pain: what should be its current role? Emerg Radiol. 2016;23:477–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Federle MP, Jaffe TA, Davis PL, Al-Hawary MM, Levine MS. Contrast media for fluoroscopic examinations of the GI and GU tracts: current challenges and recommendations. Abdom Radiol. 2017;42:90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Robinson C, Punwani S, Taylor S. Imaging the gastrointestinal tract in 2008. Clin Med. 2009;9:609–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Connor SD, Summers RM. Revisiting oral barium sulfate contrast agents. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson W, Harthill JE, James WB, Montgomery D. Barium sulphate preparations for use in double contrast examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Br J Radiol. 1980;53:1150–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cumberland DC. Optimum viscosity of barium suspension for use in the double contrast barium meal. Gastrointest Radiol. 1977;2:169–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Conry BG, Jones S, Bartram CI. The effect of oral magnesium-containing bowel preparation agents on mucosal coating by barium sulphate suspensions. Br J Radiol. 1987;60:1215–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ott DJ, Gelfand DW. Gastrointestinal contrast agents. Indications, uses, and risks. JAMA. 1983;249:2380–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Laufer I, Levine MS. Double contrast gastrointestinal radiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Matsuhashi N, Akahane M, Nakajima A. Barium impaction therapy for refractory colonic diverticular bleeding. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:490–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gelfand DW, Ott DJ, Hunt TH. Gastrointestinal complications of radiologic procedures. In: Meyers MA, Ghahremani GG, editors. Iatrogenic gastrointestinal complications. New York: Springer. p. 91–122.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wylie R, Hyams JS, Kay M, editors. Pediatric gastrointestinal and liver disease. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goldberg HI. Letter: the barium enema and toxic megacolon: cause-effect relationship? Gastroenterology. 1975;68:617–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Butt J, Hentges D, Pelican G, Henstorf H, Haag T, Rolfe R, Hutcheson D. Bacteremia during barium enema study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978;130:715–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Walsham A, Larsen J. Adverse effects of barium sulfate in the biliary tract. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2008;14:94–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Hara DE, Krakovitz EK, Wolferth CC. Barium intravasation during an upper gastrointestinal examination: a case report and literature review. Am Surg. 1995;61:330–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Levine MS, Yee J. History, evolution, and current status of radiologic imaging tests for colorectal cancer screening. Radiology. 2014;273:S160–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eisenberg RL, Hedgcock MW, Shanser JD, Brenner RJ, Gedgaudas RK, Marks WM. Iodine absorption from the gastrointestinal tract during hypaque-enema examination. Radiology. 1979;133:597–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. ACR, American College of Radiology. ACR manual on contrast media version 10.3. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  21. ESUR. ESUR guidelines on contrast media 9.0. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Culp WC. Relief of severe fecal impactions with water-soluble contrast enemas. Radiology. 1975;115:9–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rubesin SE, Levine MS. Radiologic diagnosis of gastrointestinal perforation. Radiol Clin North Am. 2003;41:1095–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, Booya F, Young BM, Fidler JL, et al. CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radiographics. 2006;26:641–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ilangovan R, Burling D, George A, Gupta A, Marshall M, Taylor SA. CT enterography: review of technique and practical tips. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:876–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lim BK, Bux SI, Rahmat K, Lam SY, Liew YW. Evaluation of bowel distension and mural visualisation using neutral oral contrast agents for multidetector-row computed tomography. Singap Med J. 2012;53:732–6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Griffin N, Grant LA, Anderson S, Irving P, Sanderson J. Small bowel MR enterography: problem solving in Crohn’s disease. Insights Imaging. 2012;3:251–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Naeger DM, Chang SD, Kolli P, Shah V, Huang W, Thoeni RF. Neutral vs positive oral contrast in diagnosing acute appendicitis with contrast-enhanced CT: sensitivity, specificity, reader confidence and interpretation time. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:418–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ajaj W, Goehde SC, Schneemann H, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF, Lauenstein TC. Oral contrast agents for small bowel MRI: comparison of different additives to optimize bowel distension. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:458–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hashemi J, Davoudi Y, Taghavi M, Pezeshki Rad M, Moghadam AM. Improvement of distension and mural visualization of bowel loops using neutral oral contrasts in abdominal computed tomography. World J Radiol. 2014;6:907–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang YR, Yu XL, Peng ZY. Evaluation of different small bowel contrast agents by multi-detector row CT. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2018;8(9):16175–82.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gottumukkala RV, LaPointe A, Sargent D, Gee MS. Comparison of three oral contrast preparations for magnetic resonance enterography in pediatric patients with known or suspected Crohn disease: a prospective randomized trial. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49(7):889–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04378-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Saini S, Colak E, Anthwal S, Vlachou PA, Raikhlin A, Kirpalani A. Comparison of 3% sorbitol vs psyllium fibre as oral contrast agents in MR enterography. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20140100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Mirk P, Bonomo L. CT enterography with polyethylene glycol solution vs CT enteroclysis in small bowel disease. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:112–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Suzan Saylisoy

  2. Department of Radiology, Istanbul University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sukru Mehmet Erturk

Authors
  1. Suzan Saylisoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sukru Mehmet Erturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Istanbul University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sukru Mehmet Erturk

  2. Departments of Radiology and Pathology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    Pablo R. Ros

  3. Departments of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Gunma University, Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan

    Tomoaki Ichikawa

  4. Department of Radiology, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Suzan Saylisoy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Saylisoy, S., Erturk, S.M. (2021). Gastrointestinal Iodinated Contrast Agents. In: Erturk, S.M., Ros, P.R., Ichikawa, T., Saylisoy, S. (eds) Medical Imaging Contrast Agents: A Clinical Manual. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79256-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79256-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-79255-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-79256-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation