Contrast venography of the leg: diagnostic efficacy, tolerance, and complication rates with ionic and nonionic...

A prospective, three-center study of two contrast agents for leg venography was performed to evaluate both the relative frequency of adverse effects and whether low-osmolality agents provided significant advantages for this procedure. Fifty-four patients were studied with the standard preparation (iothalamate meglumine) and 57 with a nonionic agent (iopamidol). Both were used at an iodine concentration of 200 mg/mL, and there were no differences in volume of contrast material, duration of infusion, percentage of positive studies, or overall diagnostic adequacy. Patient discomfort was less with iopamidol than with iothalamate (18% vs. 44%), although discomfort was generally mild in both groups. By objective follow-up studies, the frequency of postvenographic thrombosis was not significantly different in the two groups (8% vs. 9%). Contrast venography, then, had a low frequency of complications when either a dilute conventional or a low-osmolality agent was employed. Although the frequency of postvenographic thrombosis was low with both agents, patient discomfort was less with the low-osmolality formulation.