Related Experiment Videos
[Comparative study of iohexol and iopamidol as cardioangiographic contrast media]
1Sección de Hemodinámica Cardíaca, Hospital de Bellvitge-Prínceps d'Espanya, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona.
Insights
Iohexol and iopamidol, two contrast agents, showed comparable cardiac effects and image quality in left ventriculography and coronary arteriography. Both agents are suitable for angiocardiography procedures.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Radiology
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Nonionic low-osmolality contrast agents are widely used in cardiovascular imaging.
- Iohexol and iopamidol are two commonly utilized agents.
- Assessing and comparing their cardiac effects is crucial for clinical practice.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the cardiac effects of iohexol and iopamidol.
- To evaluate image quality and clinical/electrocardiographic outcomes.
- To determine the safety and efficacy of these contrast agents in angiocardiography.
Main Methods:
- Double-blind randomized study.
- Involved 50 patients undergoing left ventriculography and coronary arteriography (25 iohexol, 25 iopamidol).
- Assessed image quality, clinical adverse events, electrocardiographic changes, and hemodynamic parameters.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in image quality, clinical effects (nausea, warmth), or electrocardiographic changes between iohexol and iopamidol groups.
- Both agents caused a slight but significant increase in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure.
- No significant changes in systolic left ventricular pressure were observed.
Conclusions:
- Iohexol and iopamidol demonstrate comparable safety and efficacy.
- Both agents are well-qualified for use in left ventriculography and coronary arteriography.
- The findings support the interchangeable use of these contrast agents in clinical settings.
Abstract:
We have done a double-blind randomized study to compare the cardiac effects of 2 nonionic low osmolality contrast agents, iohexol (n = 25) and iopamidol (n = 25), for left ventriculography and coronary arteriography. No statistical differences were detected between both groups in quality of image, clinical (absence of nausea; intense warmth [8% vs 8%, p = NS]) and electrocardiography (repolarization changes [24% vs 12%, p = NS], absence of severe bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmia) effects. Ventriculography induced no change in systolic left ventricular pressure (iohexol: 128.6 +/- 18 vs 127 +/- 19 mmHg, p = NS; iopamidol: 133 +/- 24 vs 131.8 +/- 23 mmHg, p = NS), and a little but significant rise in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (iohexol: pre = 11.6 +/- 7 vs post = 13.9 +/- 7 mmHg, p less than 0.01; iopamidol: 11.7 +/- 4 vs post = 15.5 +/- 5 mmHg, p less than 0.001). Our results suggest that iohexol and iopamidol are comparable and qualified for angiocardiography.