Comparison of patient comfort between iodixanol and iopamidol in contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis: a randomized trial

被引:11
|
作者
Weiland, Frederick L. [1 ]
Marti-Bonmati, Luis [2 ]
Lim, Lauren [3 ]
Becker, Hans-Christoph [4 ]
机构
[1] Sutter Roseville Hosp, Roseville, CA 95661 USA
[2] Hosp Univ & Politecn La Fe, Dept Radiol, Valencia, Spain
[3] GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ USA
[4] Univ Munich, Dept Clin Radiol, Grosshadern Clin, Munich, Germany
关键词
Abdomen/GI; CT; contrast agents - intravenous; Visipaque (Iodixanol); Isovue (Iopamidol); patient comfort; DIGITAL-SUBTRACTION-ANGIOGRAPHY; DOUBLE-BLIND; FEMORAL ARTERIOGRAPHY; PHASE-III; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PERIPHERAL ARTERIOGRAPHY; ADULT AORTOGRAPHY; PARALLEL TRIAL; IOXAGLATE; SAFETY;
D O I
10.1177/0284185113505277
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: Previous clinical studies have shown that iso-osmolar iodixanol (Visipaque (R)) causes less patient discomfort than low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) when administered via intra-arterial injection. No data are available comparing these agents for patient discomfort when administered intravenously (i. v.) using power injectors. Purpose: To compare the frequency and intensity of patient discomfort between iodixanol and iopamidol (Isovue (R)) administered i. v. using a power injector in contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen and pelvis. Material and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of iodixanol 320 mg I/mL or iopamidol 370 mg I/mL on patient discomfort. The presence of discomfort (heat, pain, coldness) and intensity was verbally rated by patients on a 0-10 scale and converted into four categories (0, none; 1-3, mild; 4-7, moderate; 8-10, severe). Image quality was evaluated. Results: Of the 299 evaluable patients enrolled at nine centers, 151 received iodixanol and 148 received iopamidol. The average age was 58 years. Iodixanol patients experienced significantly less moderate/severe discomfort (35.1% vs. 67.3%; P< 0.0001) or heat (29.8% vs. 63.9%; P< 0.0001), and severe discomfort (2.6% vs. 16.3%; P 0.0004) or heat (2.6% vs. 15%; P 0.0008), but three times more no discomfort (21.2% vs. 7.5%; P = 0.0008) than iopamidol patients. Excellent image quality was in 95.4% of iodixanol vs. 89.9% of iopamidol patients (P = 0.0508). Overall, adverse event (AE) rate excluding patient discomfort was 19.9% in the iodixanol group and 14.9% in the iopamidol group (P = 0.2870), but contrast-related AEs were comparable: 11.3% vs. 10.1% (P = 0.8522). Delayed skin reactions occurred in 2.6% of patients in the iodixanol group and in no patient in the iopamidol group (P = 0.1226). Conclusion: Patients receiving iodixanol had significantly lower moderate-to-severe or severe discomfort than patients receiving iopamidol, with heat being the major contributor. Iodixanol use trended towards better image quality but the difference was not statistically significant. No significant differences in incidences of overall or contrast-related AEs or delayed skin reactions were seen between the two groups. These data support that CM osmolality may be a key determinant of patient discomfort.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:715 / 724
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND TRIAL OF IOVERSOL AND IOPAMIDOL IN CONTRAST-ENHANCED COMPUTED BODY TOMOGRAPHY
    SAGE, MR
    EVILL, CA
    FON, GT
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1989, 24 : S39 - S41
  • [2] A COMPARISON OF IOPROMIDE WITH IOPAMIDOL AND IOHEXOL FOR CONTRAST-ENHANCED COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY
    GOLDBERG, SN
    ABRAHAMS, J
    DRAYER, BP
    GOLDING, S
    BERNARDINO, M
    BRUNETTI, J
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1994, 29 : S76 - S83
  • [3] Influence of Contrast Material Temperature on Patient Comfort and Image Quality in Computed Tomography of the Abdomen A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Martens, Bibi
    Wildberger, Joachim E.
    Van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
    De Vos-Geelen, Judith
    Jeukens, Cecile R. L. P. N.
    Mihl, Casper
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2022, 57 (02) : 85 - 89
  • [4] Prevalence of Malignancy on Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography of the Abdomen and Pelvis in Patients With Unexplained, Unintentional Weight Loss
    Noblett, Dylan
    Kwong, Austin
    Corwin, Michael T.
    Fananapazir, Ghaneh
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2021, 45 (05) : 663 - 668
  • [5] Posterior Peptic Perforation and Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography of the Abdomen
    Mithilesh Kumar Sinha
    Sudipta Mohakud
    Al Ameen Asharaf
    Indian Journal of Surgery, 2024, 86 : 261 - 262
  • [6] Posterior Peptic Perforation and Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography of the Abdomen
    Sinha, Mithilesh Kumar
    Mohakud, Sudipta
    Asharaf, Al Ameen
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024, 86 (01) : 261 - 262
  • [7] A Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan of Abdomen—Secondary to Testicular Tumor
    Gulab D. Yadav
    Kumar Vineet
    Vibhu Jain
    Indian Journal of Surgery, 2022, 84 : 238 - 239
  • [8] IOMEPROL VERSUS IOPAMIDOL IN CONTRAST-ENHANCED COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY OF THORACIC AND ABDOMINAL ORGANS
    VALENTINI, AL
    TARTAGLIONE, T
    MONTI, L
    MARANO, P
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1994, 18 : S88 - S92
  • [9] Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Confidence between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Scan and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Plus Abdomen Ultrasound for Hepatic Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer
    Noh, Hee Yeon
    Ahn, Su Joa
    Nam, Sang Yu
    Jang, Young Rock
    Chun, Yong Soon
    Park, Heung Kyu
    Choi, Seung Joon
    Choi, Hye Young
    Kim, Jeong Ho
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ULTRASOUND, 2022, 30 (02) : 116 - 124
  • [10] Effect of contrast-enhanced computed tomography on diagnosis and management of acute abdomen in adults
    Tsushima, Y
    Yamada, S
    Aoki, J
    Motojima, T
    Endo, K
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2002, 57 (06) : 507 - 513