This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dacoronias, D. Articles by Dettori, A.G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dacoronias, D. Articles by Dettori, A.G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Iomeprol vs Iopamidol in Intraarterial Peripheral Digital Subtraction Angiography

Medical Department, Bracco Industria Chimica SpA, Milan

P. Minguzzi, M.D.

Medical Department, Bracco Industria Chimica SpA, Milan

U. Ugolotti, M.D.

the Radiology Department

A.G. Dettori, M.D., Ph.D.

Medicine Department, Parma Hospital, Parma, Italy

The aim of this research was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of iomeprol, 150 mg iodine/mL, a new nonionic contrast medium, and iopamidol, 150 mg iodine/mg in intraarterial (IA) peripheral digital subtraction angiogra phy (DSA) in 100 patients; a group of 40 patients were also submitted to a com plete coagulation screening to check the influence of contrast media on blood clotting. The study was a comparative, double-blind clinical trial. The compound was assigned to each patient according to a randomization list. Small size (4-5 French) catheters were used in all patients to minimize arterial trauma and bed ding time and to assess the quality of x-ray pictures in this condition. Vital signs, EKG tracings and laboratory parameters were monitored before and after the angiographic procedure; the coagulation screening included: thrombin time, pro- thrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, euglobulin lysis time, plasma throm boplastin antecedent, and plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI). Both contrast media did not produce any adverse reaction or clinically significant alteration of studied parameters; in the 40-patient group subjected to massive coagulative screening, no important alteration after contrast media administration was report ed. The score for contrastographic efficacy was very good with both media with a prevalence of better results in the iomeprol group.

Angiology, Vol. 43, No. 9, 734-740 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/000331979204300903


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?