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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Spataro, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by McMannis, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Spataro, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by McMannis, M. J.

Radiology, Vol 162, 9-14, Copyright © 1987 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

High-dose clinical urography with the low-osmolality contrast agent Hexabrix: comparison with a conventional contrast agent

RF Spataro, RW Katzberg, HW Fischer and MJ McMannis

A double-blind clinical trial was performed in 60 patients to compare Hexabrix (ioxaglate meglumine and ioxaglate sodium) and Renografin-60 (diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium). Use of Hexabrix produced higher urinary iodine concentrations, lower urine volumes at 30 minutes, and excretory urograms significantly better in diagnostic quality, as rated by four independent observers. There was no difference in nephrogram quality between contrast agents. Patients receiving Hexabrix had less of an increase in heart rate and demonstrated a slight rise in mean arterial blood pressure, rather than the biphasic rise then fall seen with Renografin-60. There was no significant change for up to 96 hours after urography in results of hematology, clinical chemistry, or urinalysis, except for an increase of 0.005 in urine specific gravity with Renografin-60. Patients reported significantly less body heat, heat in the injection arm, and overall discomfort with Hexabrix. There was a similar amount of nausea and vomiting in the two groups. Hexabrix also caused histaminic-type reactions in three patients.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
R. W. Katzberg and B. J. Barrett
Risk of Iodinated Contrast Material-induced Nephropathy with Intravenous Administration
Radiology, June 1, 2007; 243(3): 622 - 628.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. C. Heinrich, M. K. Kuhlmann, S. Kohlbacher, M. Scheer, A. Grgic, M. B. Heckmann, and M. Uder
Cytotoxicity of Iodinated and Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents in Renal Tubular Cells at Angiographic Concentrations: In Vitro Study
Radiology, December 19, 2006; (2006) 2422060245.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
K. D. Eggli
The Newer Radiographic Contrast Media
Clinical Pediatrics, September 1, 1992; 31(9): 554 - 558.
[PDF]

Home page
 J Hand Surg Eur VolHome page
T. IMAEDA, R. NAKAMURA, T. MIURA, and N. MAKINO
Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Kienbock's Disease
J Hand Surg Eur Vol., February 1, 1992; 17(1): 12 - 19.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1987 by the Radiological Society of North America.