Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, C. B.
Right arrow Articles by Slutsky, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, C. B.
Right arrow Articles by Slutsky, R. A.

Radiology, Vol 142, 681-686, Copyright © 1982 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Evaluation of the hemodynamic effects of intravenous administration of ionic and nonionic contrast materials. Implications for deriving physiologic measurements from computed tomography and digital cardiovascular imaging

CB Higgins, KH Gerber, RF Mattrey and RA Slutsky

The effects of intravenous injection of an ionic contrast material (Renografin-76 [meglumine sodium diatrizoate]) on left ventricular pressure, internal diameter, and wall thickness, and on coronary and femoral hemodynamics were compared with those of a hydrolytically stable nonionic contrast material (iohexol). Renografin-76 caused drastic biphasic changes in left ventricular pressure and dp/dt (rate of change of left ventricular pressure), and moderate changes in end systolic dimension. Iohexol caused little or no change in left ventricular pressure and dimensions. In addition, Renografin-76 caused marked arterial hypotension and large increases in coronary and femoral blood flows, while iohexol caused no significant change in arterial pressure and coronary blood flow, and a mild increase in femoral blood flow. Based on these findings, it is concluded that iohexol is preferable to standard ionic contrast material for deriving basal physiologic information from computed tomographic and digital vascular studies.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. B. Pitton, G. Kemmerich, S. Herber, E. Mayer, M. Thelen, and C. Duber
Hemodynamic effects of monomeric nonionic contrast media in pulmonary angiography in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 128 - 134.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
A. T. Jones, D. M. Hansell, and T. W. Evans
Pulmonary perfusion in supine and prone positions: an electron-beam computed tomography study
J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2001; 90(4): 1342 - 1348.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
M. B. Pitton, C. Duber, E. Mayer, and M. Thelen
Hemodynamic Effects of Nonionic Contrast Bolus Injection and Oxygen Inhalation During Pulmonary Angiography in Patients With Chronic Major-Vessel Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension
Circulation, November 15, 1996; 94(10): 2485 - 2491.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
G. J. Dehmer, M. Fisher, D. A. Tate, S. Teo, and E. M. Bonnem
Reversal of Heparin Anticoagulation by Recombinant Platelet Factor 4 in Humans
Circulation, April 15, 1995; 91(8): 2188 - 2194.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1982 by the Radiological Society of North America.