Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Currently Available Iodinated Contrast Media

  • Chapter
Trends in Contrast Media

Part of the book series: Medical Radiology ((Med Radiol Diagn Imaging))

Abstract

A large majority of the papers to appear in scientific journals in recent years on the subject of contrast media have focused on agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US). Iodinated contrast media have received relatively little attention in spite of their widespread use, which far exceeds that of agents for US and MRI. Possibly, scientific arguments concerning iodinated contrast media came to an end because current agents are so good that it seems unlikely that anything more than modest incremental improvements are possible (DAWSON 1995). Available contrast agents are so efficacious and safe that it is becoming more and more difficult to identify significant differences among them. Possibly our methodological approach to clinical trials needs to change if such small differences are to be detected. Clinical studies could be better focused on populations that are more susceptible to contrast media toxicity, and other scientific branches, such as pharmacoepidemiology, could help us to improve the methodological approach to clinical trials (STACUL and SPINAZZI 1997).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adolph JMG, Engelkamp H, Herbig W, Peters PE, Wenzel-Hora BI (1995) Iotrolan in urography: efficacy and tolerance in comparison with iohexol and iopamidol. Eur Radiol (Suppl 2) 5:S63–S68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen PE, Bolstad B, Berg KJ, Justesen P, Thayssen P, Kloster YF (1993) Iodixanol and ioxaglate in car-dioangiography. A double-blind randomized phase III study. Clin Radiol 48:268–272.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett BJ, Carlisle E J (1993) Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high- and low-osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology 188:171–178.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brismar J, Jacobsson BF, Jorulf H (1991) Miscellaneous ad-verse effects of low- versus high-osmolality contrast media: a study revised. Radiology 179:19–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carraro M, Malalan F, Antonione R, Stacul F, Ceva M, Petz S, Assante M, Grynne BJ, Haider T, Dalla Palma L, Faccini L (1998) Effects of dimeric versus monomeric nonionic contrast media on renal function in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Eur Radiol: 144–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauss W, Dinger J, Meissner C (1995) Renal tolerance of iotrolan 280 - a meta-analysis of 14 double-blind studies. Eur Radiol (Suppl 2) 5:79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalla Palma L, Rossi M, Stacul F, Agostini R (1982) Iopamidol in urography: comparison between ionic and nonionic contrast media in patients with normal and impaired renal function. Urol Radiol 4:1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson P (1991) Contrast agents in clinical angiography. Relevance to thromboembolic phenomena. Front Eur Radiol 8:53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson P (1995) Design plays major role in new contrast media. Diagn Imaging Eur June:3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson P (1996) The non-ionic isotonic contrast agents. Perspectives and controversies. Eur Radiol (Suppl) 6:S20–S24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson P, Edgerton D (1983) Contrast media and enzyme inhibition. I. Cholinesterase. Br J Radiol 56:653–656.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson P, Grainger RG, Pitfield J (1983) The new low-osmolar contrast media: a simple guide. Clin Radiol 34:221–226.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Del Favero C, Rossini G, Martegani A (1993) A comparison of iopamidol and ioxaglate in CT enhancement. Eur Radiol 3:77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis JH, Cohan RH, Sonnad SS, Shafiroff Cohan N (1996) Selective use of radiographic low-osmolality contrast media in the 1990s. Radiology 200:297–311.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finet G, Roriz R, Nantois C, Borch KW, Revel D, Beaune J, Amiel M (1992) Iodixanol in ventriculography and coronary angiography. A double blind parallel phase III comparison with ioxaglate. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (Suppl) 15:S48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gmeinwieser JK, Wenzel-Hora Bí (1995) Peripheral and penile angiography with iotrolan 280 versus non-ionic monomers: results of the European clinical phase II and III trials. Eur Radiol (Suppl 2) 5:S30–S38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes AS, Lois JF, Baker JD, McGlade CT, Bunnell DH, Hartzman S (1989) Acute renal dysfunction in high risk patients after angiography. Comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology 170:65–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grynne BJ, Nossen JO, Bolstad B, Borch KW (1995) Main results of the first comparative clinical studies on Visipaque. An overview of 18 clinical studies. Acta Radiol 36(Suppl 399):265–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen B, Wenzel-Hora Bí (1989) Initial experience with a nonionic, dimeric contrast medium (Iotrolan) in direct and indirect arteriography: a randomized intraindividual double-blind study in 60 patients. In: Taenzer V, Wende S (eds) Recent developments in nonionic contrast media. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haughton VM, Papke A, Hyland D, Drayer BP, Osborn AG, Maravilla K, Hilal SK (1994) Safety and efficacy of iopromide in cerebral arteriography. Invest Radiol (Suppl)29:S94–S97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshfeld JR (1991) Radiographic contrast agents. In: Marcus ML, Skorton DJ, Schelbert HR, Wolf GL (eds) Cardiac Imaging. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 162–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen JA, Lundby B, Kristoffersen DT, Borch KW, Haid JK, Berg KJ (1992) Evaluation of renal function with delayed CT after injection of nonionic monomeric and dimeric contrast media in healthy volunteers. Radiology 182:419–424.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen JA, Berg KJ, Nossen JO (1994) Renal function and contrast retention after angiography in patients with severe renal failure. Acta Radiol (Suppl 394) 35:S38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justesen P, Downes M, Hougens Grynne B, Lang H, Rasch W, Seim E (1997) Injection associated pain in femoral arteriography: a European multicentre study comparing safety, tolerability and efficacy of iodixanol 270 mg I/ml (Visipaque) and iopromide 300 mg I/ml (Ultravist). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 20:251–256.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese Committee on the safety of contrast media. Radiology 175:621–628.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Katholi RE, Taylor GJ, Woods WT, Womack KA, Katholi CR, McCann WP, Moses HW, Dove JT, Mikell FL, Woodruff RC, Miller BD, Schneider JA (1993) Nephrotoxicity of nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast media: a prospective double-blind randomized comparison in human beings. Radiology 186:183–187.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnison ML, Powe NR, Steinberg EP (1989) Results of randomized controlled trials of low- versus high-osmolality contrast media. Radiology 170:381–389.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klow NE, Levorstad K, Berg KJ, Brodahl U, Endressen K, Kristoffersen DT, Laake B, Simonsen S, Tofte AJ, Lundby B (1993) Iodixanol in cardioangiography in patients with coronary artery disease. Acta Radiol 34:72–77.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kormano M (1981) Kinetics of contrast media after bolus injection and infusion. In: Felix R, Kazner E, Wegener OH (eds) Contrast media in computed tomography, Proceedings International Workshop Berlin, January 14–17. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manninen M, Tahvanainen K, Borch KW, Wallen T, Soimakallio S, Matsi P, Suhonen M (1995) Iodixanol, a new non-ionic dimeric contrast medium in cardioangiography: a double-masked parallel comparison with iopromide. Eur Radiol 5:364–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris TW (1993) X-ray contrast media: where are we now, and where are we going? Radiology 188:11–16.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris TW, Kern MA, Katzberg RW (1982) The effects of media viscosity on hemodynamics in selective arteriography. Invest Radiol 17:70–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris TW, Harnish PP, Reece K, Katzberg RW (1983) Tissue fluid shifts during renal arteriography with conventional and low osmolality agents. Invest Radiol 18:335–340.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Narimatsu Y, Hiramatsu K (1995) A Japanese multicenter comparison of iotrolan 280 with iopamidol 300 in intravenous urography. Eur Radiol (Suppl 2) 5:S58–S62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niendorf HP (1996) Delayed allergy-like reactions to X-ray contrast media. Problem statement exemplified with iotrolan (Isovist) 280. Eur Radiol (Suppl) 6:S8–S10

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer F J (1988) The RACR survey of intravenous contrast media reactions. Final report. Australas Radiol 32:426–428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer FJ (1990) Morbidity and mortality with intravenous contrast media: ionic and nonionic. Invest Radiol (Suppl) 25:S18–S19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmers Y, DeGreef D, Grynne BH, Smits J, Put E (1993) A double-blind study comparing safety, tolerability and efficacy of iodixanol 320 mg I/ml and ioxaglate 320 mg I/ml in cerebral arteriography. Eur J Radiol 17:203–209.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh PD, Sissons GRJ, Ruttley MST, Berg KJ, Nossen JO, Eide H (1993) Iodixanol in femoral arteriography (phase III): a comparative double-blind parallel trial between iodixanol and iopromide. Invest Radiol 17:70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati G, Morisetti A, Tirone P (1992) Toxicity in animals and safety in humans. The predictive value of animal studies. Toxicol Lett 64:705–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati G, Davies A, Spinazzi A (1995) Predictable and unpredictable adverse reactions to iomeprol and iopromide. Acad Radiol (Suppl) 2:S210–S213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L, Ludbrook PA, Murphy MJ, Halpern EF, Hill JA, Winniford M, Cohen MB, VanFessen DB (1995) Nephrotoxicity of ionic and non-ionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. Kidney Int 47:254–261.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton HM (1989) Opacification of collecting ducts at urography. Radiology 170:16–17.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab SJ, Hlatky MA, Pieper KS, Davidson CJ, Morris KJ, Skelton TN, Bashore TM (1989) Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of a non-ionic and an ionic radiographic contrast agent. N Engl J Med 320:149–153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Silvay-Mandeau OM, Meissner C, Wenzel-Hora Bí (1995) Clinical safety assessment of iotrolan 280 in European clinical trials. Eur Radiol (Suppl 2) 5:S85–S88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spataro RF (1984) Newer contrast agents for urography. Radiol Clin North Am 22:365–380.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spataro RF, Katzberg RW, Fisher HW, McMannis MJ (1987) High-dose clinical urography with the low-osmolality contrast agent Hexabrix: comparison with a conventional contrast agent. Radiology 162:9–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Speck U(1994a) Principles and aims of preclinical testing. Invest Radiol 29 (Suppl l):515–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speck U (1994b) Physicochemical properties of contrast media: osmotic pressure, viscosity, solubility, lipophilicity, hydrophilicity, electrical charge. In: Dawson P, Clauss W (eds) Contrast media in practice. SpringAer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacul F, Spinazzi A (1997) Is it possible to choose the safest contrast media through the results of clinical studies? Eur Radiol 7:532–533.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stacul F, Cova M, Assante M, Hougens Grynne B, Halder T (1998) Comparison between the efficacy of dimeric and monomeric non-ionic contrast media (iodixanol vs iopromide) in urography in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency. Br J Radiol 71:918–922.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stacul F, Thomsen H (1996) Non ionic monomers and dimers. Eur Radiol 6:756–761.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sundgren PC, Baath L, Tornquist C, Hougens Grynne B, Kjaersgaard P, Almen T (1996) Image quality and safety after iodixanol in intravenous urography; a comparison with iohexol. Br J Radiol 69:699–703.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taliercio CP, Vliestra RE, Ilstrup DM, Burnett JC, Menke KK, Stensrud SL, Holmes DR (1991) A randomized comparison of the nephrotoxicity of iopamidol and diatrizoate in high risk patients undergoing cardiac angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 17:384–390.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson WM, Foster WL Jr, Halvorsen RN, Dunnick NR, Rommel HJ, Bates M (1984) Iopamidol: new non ionic contrast agent for excretory urography. AJR 142:329–332.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen HS (1994) Universal use of low-osmolar contrast media: a European perspective. Acad Radiol 1:295–297.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit K, Bolz KD, Bolstad B, Haugland T, Berg KJ, Skjaerpe T, Kloster YF (1994) Iodixanol in cardioangiography. A double-blind parallel comparison between iodixanol 320 mg I/ml and ioxaglate 320 mg I/ml. Acta Radiol 35:614–618.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ueda J, Nygren A, Hansell P, Ulfendahl HR (1993) Effect of intravenous contrast media on proximal and distal tubular hydrostatic pressure in the rat kidney. Acta Radiol 34:83–87.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf GL, Arenson RL, Cross AP (1989) A prospective trial of ionic vs nonionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects. AJR 152:939–944.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Radiology, University of Trieste, Ospedale di Cattinara, Strada di Fiume 447, Trieste, I-34149, Italy

    F. Stacul MD

Authors
  1. F. Stacul MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology 54E2, Copenhagen University Hospital at Herlev, Herlev Ringvei 75, DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Henrick S. Thomsen MD

  2. Département de Chimie Organique & Laboratoire RMN, Université de Mons-Hainaut, 24, Avenue du Champ de Mars, B-7000, Mons, Belgium

    Robert N. Muller MD (Professor, Faculté de Médecine) (Professor, Faculté de Médecine)

  3. Department of Radiology, UCSD Medical Center, 200 W. Arbor Drive, 92109-8756, San Diego, CA, USA

    Robert F. Mattrey MD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stacul, F. (1999). Currently Available Iodinated Contrast Media. In: Thomsen, H.S., Muller, R.N., Mattrey, R.F. (eds) Trends in Contrast Media. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59814-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59814-2_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-64136-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-59814-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation