Abstract
The safety, tolerance and efficacy of the non-ionic dimer iotrolan 280 in head and body computed tomography was compared with iohexol, iopamidol and iopromide in a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study. A total of 307 head and 261 body examinations were performed. No significant changes in liver or renal blood parameters were seen up to 24 h post-examination. No significant differences in tolerability, adverse events profile, and efficacy were seen.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kennedy C, Rickärds D, Lee S, Harp MB, Dawson P (1988) A double-blind study comparing the efficiency, tolerance and renal effects of iopromide and iopamidol. Br J Radiol 61: 288–293
Langer M, Langer R, Zwicker C, Speck U, Jänicke U-A, Felix R (1991) Clinical and nephrologic tolerance of iopromide and iotrolan in computed tomography. Invest Radiol 26: 83–85
Gross-Fengels W, Neufang KFK, Siebert CH, Lanfermann H, Steinbrich W (1990) Unerwünschte Kontrastmittelnebenwirkungen bei der i. v. DSA — Vergleich von zwei nichtionischen Kontrastmitteln. Röntgen-Blätter 43: 144–149
Bernardino ME, Fishman EK, Jeffrey RG, Brown PC (1992) Comparison of iohexol 300 and diatrizoate meglumine 60 for body CT: image quality, adverse reactions, and aborted/repeated examinations. Am J Radiol 156: 665–667
Wolf GL, Arenson RL, Cross AP (1989) A prospective trial of ionic vs non-ionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects. Am J Radiol 152: 939–944
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schubiger, O., Friedrich, M., Valavanis, A. et al. Iotrolan in head and body CT — European experience. Eur. Radiol. 5 (Suppl 2), S54–S57 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02343262
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02343262