Skip to main content
Log in

Comparative effects of nonionic (iopamidol) and ionic (sodium and meglumine diatrizoate) contrast media for urography on urinary excretion of water and solutes

  • Published:
Urologic radiology

Abstract

Urinary water and solute excretion before and for 40 minutes after intravenous bolus injection of a nonionic (iopamidol) or an ionic medium (sodium meglumine diatrizoate) have been studied in subjects with normal renal function. Iopamidol produced less urinary losses of water, potassium, sodium, and chloride than did diatrizoate; uric acid excretion was also less enhanced. Surprisingly, both contrast agents produced a comparable increase in urinary pH and bicarbonate excretion. These data show that nonionic agents produce fewer changes in urinary excretion of water and solutes; the less enhanced excretion of uric acid after a nonionic medium may be an important reason to choose the latter agents for urography in patients at risk for urate neophropathy.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davidson AJ:Radiology of the Kidney. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders 1985, p. 681

    Google Scholar 

  2. Higgins CB: Effects of contrast materials on left ventricular function.Invest Radiol 15(suppl):220–231, 1980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Higgins CB, Gerber KH, Mattrey RF, Slutsky RA: Evaluation of the hemodynamic effects of intravenous administration of ionic and nonionic contrast materials.Radiology 142:681–686, 1982

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Winfield AC, Dray RJ, Kirchner FK Jr., Muhletaler CA, Price RR: Iohexol for excretory urography: a comparative study.AJR 141:571–573, 1983

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Salvesen S: Local toxicity of metrizamide on intravascular injection. Effect on kidney, liver and blood-brain barrier.Acta Radiol (Suppl)335:166–174, 1973

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Khoury GA, Hopper JC, Varghese Z, Farrington DK, Dick R, Irving JD, Sweny P, Fernando ON, Moorhead JF: Nephrotoxicity of ionic and non-ionic contrast material in digital vascular imaging and selective renal arteriography.Br J Radiol 56:631–635, 1983

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Webb JAW: The effect of intravenous contrast medium on glomerular filtration rate.Br J Radiol 57:387, 1984

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Spataro RF, Fischer HW, Boyland L: Urography with lowosmolality contrast media; comparative urinary excretion of iopamidol, hexabrix and diatrizoate.Invest Radiol 17:494–500, 1982

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Evill CA, Benness GT: Solute excretion during intravenous urography.Invest Radiol 10:552–556, 1975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Evill CA, Benness GT: Urographic excretion studies with metrizamide and “dimer”: a high dose comparison in dogs.Invest Radiol 12:169–174, 1977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilcox J, Evill CA, Sage MR, Benness GT: Urographic excretion studies with nonionic contrast agents.Invest Radiol 18:207–210, 1983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Liddle L, Seegmiller JE, Laster L: Enzymatic spectrophotometric method for determination of uric acid.J Lab Clin Med 54:903–913, 1959

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG:Statistical Methods (6th ed.) Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1967

    Google Scholar 

  14. Orloff J, Berliner RW: Renal physiology. InHandbook of Physiology. Washington: American Physiological Society, 1973, p. 1003

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goodman LS, Gilman A:The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 5th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1975, p 809

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mathisen O, Raeder M, Kill F: Mechanism of osmotic diuresis.Kidney Int 19:431–437, 1981

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Postlethwaite AE, Kelley WN: Uricosuric effect of radiocontrast agents. A study in man of four commonly used preparations.Ann Intern Med 74:845–852, 1971

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Skeith MD, Healey LA, Cutler RE: Urate excretion during mannitol and glucose diuresis.J Lab Clin Med 70:213–220, 1967

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mudge GH: Nephrotoxicity of urographic radiocontrast drugs.Kidney Int 18:540–552, 1980

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Webb JA, Reznek RH, Cattel R, Kelsey FRY I: Renal function after high dose urography in patients with renal failure.Br J Radiol 54:479–483, 1981

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kjellstrand CM, Berkseth RO, Abraham PA: Renal damage induced by radiology contrast media. InNephrology: Proceedings of the IX th International Congress of Nephrology. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985, p 835

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garibotto, G., Saffioti, S., Garlaschi, G. et al. Comparative effects of nonionic (iopamidol) and ionic (sodium and meglumine diatrizoate) contrast media for urography on urinary excretion of water and solutes. Urol Radiol 8, 199–203 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924105

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924105

Key words

Navigation