Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Low-osmolality versus high-osmolality contrast material.

W T Korn1, M A Bettmann

  • 1Boston University Hospital, Massachusetts.

Current Opinion in Radiology
|April 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Prevalence of acute reactions to iopromide: postmarketing surveillance study of 74,717 patients.

Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)·2008
Same author

Identification of the portal vein: wedge hepatic venography with CO2 or iodinated contrast medium.

Academic radiology·2003
Same author

[Studies of cost-effectiveness and cost-usefulness in radiology].

Journal de radiologie·2002
Same author

[Decision analysis in radiology].

Journal de radiologie·2002
Same author

Comparison of a new stent and Wallstent for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in a porcine model.

World journal of gastroenterology·2002
Same author

Outcomes and performance of the Tesio twin catheter system placed for hemodialysis access.

Radiology·2001

High costs limit universal use of low-osmolality contrast agents. This study defines patient groups and situations where these agents offer the best benefit-to-cost ratio, considering reactions, nephrotoxicity, and coagulability.

Area of Science:

  • Radiology
  • Medical Imaging
  • Pharmacology

Background:

  • Low-osmolality contrast agents (LOCM) offer potential patient benefits but are significantly more expensive than high-osmolality contrast media (HOCM).
  • The high cost of LOCM has restricted their widespread adoption in intravascular diagnostic procedures.
  • Defining cost-effective use cases for LOCM is crucial for balancing patient outcomes and healthcare expenses.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify specific patient populations and clinical situations where the use of low-osmolality contrast agents is most beneficial.
  • To analyze the cost-benefit implications of employing LOCM versus HOCM.
  • To address controversial aspects of contrast media use, including adverse reactions, nephrotoxicity, and effects on blood coagulation.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review of existing literature on contrast agent properties and clinical outcomes.
  • Analysis of reported incidence rates for contrast-induced adverse events.
  • Examination of studies investigating contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity and coagulopathy.

Main Results:

  • Significant contrast reactions are less frequent with LOCM compared to HOCM.
  • Nephrotoxicity incidence and definition remain areas of active research and debate.
  • The impact of contrast media on coagulability varies, necessitating careful consideration in specific patient groups.

Conclusions:

  • The judicious selection of patients and procedures is key to optimizing the use of low-osmolality contrast agents.
  • Further research is needed to fully elucidate the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of LOCM in diverse clinical settings.
  • Radiologists must weigh the risks and benefits of different contrast media types to ensure optimal patient care and resource allocation.