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 Barrett, B. J.
Right arrow Articles by McManamon, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barrett, B. J.
Right arrow Articles by McManamon, P. J.

Radiology, Vol 183, 105-110, Copyright © 1992 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Nonionic low-osmolality versus ionic high-osmolality contrast material for intravenous use in patients perceived to be at high risk: randomized trial

BJ Barrett, PS Parfrey, JR McDonald, DM Hefferton, ER Reddy and PJ McManamon
Division of Nephrology, General Hospital, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, Canada.

To determine the cost-effectiveness of selective use of nonionic low- osmolality contrast material, the authors randomly assigned 955 patients to receive high-osmolality and 1,158 to receive low-osmolality intravenous contrast material. All patients had one or more of the following perceived risk factors for adverse reactions: prior reaction to contrast material, allergies, asthma, diabetes, cardiac or renal disease, anxiety, severe illness, and age greater than 50 years. The occurrence of any adverse event, need for therapy, or subjective symptoms was assessed in a double-blind fashion. An adverse reaction necessitating the attention of a physician occurred in 3.9% (n = 37) of patients in the high-osmolality and 0.9% (n = 10) of patients in the low-osmolality groups (P less than .000005). Therapy was administered to 1.4% (n = 13) and 0.5% (n = 6), respectively (P = .035). The difference was due to a reduction in urticaria and other mild anaphylactoid reactions. In a multivariate analysis, only prior reactions and allergy were independent risk factors. Selective use of intravenous nonionic contrast material is best justified in those with prior reactions, allergy, or asthma; at least 67% of reactions would be prevented.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JAMAHome page
N. Pannu, N. Wiebe, M. Tonelli, and for the Alberta Kidney Disease Network
Prophylaxis Strategies for Contrast-Induced Nephropathy
JAMA, June 21, 2006; 295(23): 2765 - 2779.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1992 by the Radiological Society of North America.