BACKGROUND. Nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents are used frequently because they are believed to be safer than ionic, high-osmolality agents, but they are also more expensive. We conducted a randomized trial to compare the incidence of adverse events after the administration of ionic, high-osmolality and of non-ionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents during cardiac angiography. METHODS. We compared the need to treat patients for adverse reactions and the frequency and severity of specific hemodynamic, systemic, and symptomatic side effects in two groups of patients randomly assigned to receive either ionic, high-osmolality or nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast material, and also in 366 patients who could not be randomized. RESULTS. Treatment for adverse events was required in 213 of 737 patients who received high-osmolality contrast agents (29 percent) but in only 69 of 753 patients who received nonionic agents (9 percent) (95 percent confidence interval for the percent difference, 15.9 to 23.6 percent). Hemodynamic deterioration and symptoms also occurred more often in the high-osmolality group, as did severe or prolonged reactions (2.9 percent, as compared with 0.8 percent in the nonionic group; P = 0.035). The severe reactions were largely confined to patients with severe cardiac disease. Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of severe coronary disease and unstable angina were predictors of clinically important adverse reactions. If all the patients in our randomized trial had been given nonionic contrast material, the incremental cost per procedure would have been $89. CONCLUSIONS. Nonionic, low-osmolality contrast material is better tolerated during cardiac angiography than ionic, high-osmolality contrast material. Since cost constraints may prevent the universal use of nonionic contrast material, its selective use in patients with severe cardiac disease could be considered.
Source Information
Department of Medicine, General Hospital, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
This article has been cited by other articles:
Wysowski, D. K., Nourjah, P.
(2006). Deaths attributed to x-ray contrast media on u.s. Death certificates.. Am. J. Roentgenol.
186: 613-615
[Abstract][Full Text]
Bagshaw, S. M., Ghali, W. A.
(2005). Theophylline for Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med
165: 1087-1093
[Abstract][Full Text]
Mortele, K. J., Oliva, M.-R., Ondategui, S., Ros, P. R., Silverman, S. G.
(2005). Universal Use of Nonionic Iodinated Contrast Medium for CT: Evaluation of Safety in a Large Urban Teaching Hospital. Am. J. Roentgenol.
184: 31-34
[Abstract][Full Text]
Gupta, R., Birnbaum, Y., Uretsky, B. F.
(2004). The renal patient with coronary artery disease: Current concepts and dilemmas. J Am Coll Cardiol
44: 1343-1353
[Abstract][Full Text]
Chertow, G. M., Normand, S.-L. T., McNeil, B. J.
(2004). "Renalism": Inappropriately Low Rates of Coronary Angiography in Elderly Individuals with Renal Insufficiency. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.
15: 2462-2468
[Abstract][Full Text]
Mueller, C., Buerkle, G., Buettner, H. J., Petersen, J., Perruchoud, A. P., Eriksson, U., Marsch, S., Roskamm, H.
(2002). Prevention of Contrast Media-Associated Nephropathy: Randomized Comparison of 2 Hydration Regimens in 1620 Patients Undergoing Coronary Angioplasty. Arch Intern Med
162: 329-336
[Abstract][Full Text]
Blann, A D, Adams, R, Ashleigh, R, Naser, S, Kirkpatrick, U, McCollum, C N
(2001). Changes in endothelial, leucocyte and platelet markers following contrast medium injection during angiography in patients with peripheral artery disease. Br. J. Radiol.
74: 811-817
[Abstract][Full Text]
Bertrand, M. E., Esplugas, E., Piessens, J., Rasch, W.
(2000). Influence of a Nonionic, Iso-Osmolar Contrast Medium (Iodixanol) Versus an Ionic, Low-Osmolar Contrast Medium (Ioxaglate) on Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty : A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Study. Circulation
101: 131-136
[Abstract][Full Text]
Scanlon, P. J., Faxon, D. P., Audet, A.-M., Carabello, B., Dehmer, G. J., Eagle, K. A., Legako, R. D., Leon, D. F., Murray, J. A., Nissen, S. E., Pepine, C. J., Watson, R. M., Ritchie, J. L., Gibbons, R. J., Cheitlin, M. D., Eagle, K. A., Gardner, T. J., Garson, A. Jr, Russell, R. O. Jr, Ryan, T. J., Smith, S. C. Jr
(1999). ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography) developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol
33: 1756-1824
[Full Text]
Ubel, P. A., Goold, S. D.
(1998). 'Rationing' Health Care: Not All Definitions Are Created Equal. Arch Intern Med
158: 209-214
[Full Text]
Jacobson, P. D., Rosenquist, C. J.
(1996). The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents: Technological Change and Defensive Medicine. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
21: 243-266
[Abstract]
Barrett, B. J., Parfrey, P. S.
(1994). Prevention of Nephrotoxicity Induced by Radiocontrast Agents. NEJM
331: 1449-1450
[Full Text]
Barrett, B. J., Parfrey, P. S., Foley, R. N., Detsky, A. S.
(1994). An Economic Analysis of Strategies for the Use of Contrast Media for Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization. Med Decis Making
14: 325-335
[Abstract]
(1992). ARE LOW-OSMOLALITY CONTRAST DYES COST-EFFECTIVE. JWatch General
1992: 2-2
[Full Text]
Previous
