BACKGROUND: Previous in vitro and in vivo studies have suggested an association between thrombus-related events and type of contrast media. Low osmolar contrast agents appear to improve the safety of diagnostic and coronary artery interventional procedures. However, no data are available on PTCA outcomes with an isosmolar contrast agent. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicenter prospective randomized double-blind trial was performed in 856 high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery intervention. The objective was to compare the isosmolar nonionic dimer iodixanol (n=405) with the low osmolar ionic agent ioxaglate (n=410). A composite variable of in-hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE) was the primary end point. A secondary objective was to evaluate major angiographic and procedural events during and after PTCA. The composite in-hospital primary end point was less frequent in those receiving iodixanol compared with those receiving ioxaglate (5.4% versus 9.5%, respectively; P=0.027). Core laboratory defined angiographic success was more frequent in patients receiving iodixanol (92.2% versus 85. 9% for ioxaglate, P=0.004). There was a trend toward lower total clinical events at 30 days in patients randomized to iodixanol (9.1% versus 13.2% for ioxaglate, P=0.07). Multivariate predictors of in-hospital MACE were use of ioxaglate (P=0.01) and treatment of a de novo lesion (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary prospective multicenter trial of PTCA in the setting of acute coronary syndromes, there was a low incidence of in-hospital clinical events for both treatment groups. The cohort receiving the nonionic dimer iodixanol experienced a 45% reduction in in-hospital MACE when compared with the cohort receiving ioxaglate.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous in vitro and in vivo studies have suggested an association between thrombus-related events and type of contrast media. Low osmolar contrast agents appear to improve the safety of diagnostic and coronary artery interventional procedures. However, no data are available on PTCA outcomes with an isosmolar contrast agent. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicenter prospective randomized double-blind trial was performed in 856 high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery intervention. The objective was to compare the isosmolar nonionic dimer iodixanol (n=405) with the low osmolar ionic agent ioxaglate (n=410). A composite variable of in-hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE) was the primary end point. A secondary objective was to evaluate major angiographic and procedural events during and after PTCA. The composite in-hospital primary end point was less frequent in those receiving iodixanol compared with those receiving ioxaglate (5.4% versus 9.5%, respectively; P=0.027). Core laboratory defined angiographic success was more frequent in patients receiving iodixanol (92.2% versus 85. 9% for ioxaglate, P=0.004). There was a trend toward lower total clinical events at 30 days in patients randomized to iodixanol (9.1% versus 13.2% for ioxaglate, P=0.07). Multivariate predictors of in-hospital MACE were use of ioxaglate (P=0.01) and treatment of a de novo lesion (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary prospective multicenter trial of PTCA in the setting of acute coronary syndromes, there was a low incidence of in-hospital clinical events for both treatment groups. The cohort receiving the nonionic dimer iodixanol experienced a 45% reduction in in-hospital MACE when compared with the cohort receiving ioxaglate.
Authors: Peter Aspelin; Fulvio Stacul; Henrik S Thomsen; Sameh K Morcos; Aart J van der Molen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lars Frich; Per Kristian Hol; Sumit Roy; Tom Mala; Bjørn Edwin; Ole Petter F Clausen; Ivar P Gladhaug Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-03-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Enrique Esplugas; Angel Cequier; Joan A Gomez-Hospital; Bruno García Del Blanco; Francisco Jara Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2002 Impact factor: 5.606