Literature DB >> 1551505

Comparison of iohexol-240 versus iohexol-300 in abdominal CT.

A A Singer1, J R Tagliabue, D M Paushter, G P Borkowski, D M Einstein.   

Abstract

Forty patients without evidence of liver, kidney, or significant cardiac disease were prospectively divided into two groups of 20, receiving either iohexol-240 or iohexol-300. A contrast load of 150 ml was administered in conjunction with a rapid scanning technique at a preselected, fixed level to include liver, renal cortex, and aorta. Peak enhancement was calculated as change in Hounsfield units (HU) over baseline for each area of interest. Mean peak enhancement and standard deviation were calculated for each organ, and the difference between the means for the two contrast agents was compared using the Student's t test. Differences were not statistically significant with all p values greater than 0.05. Our results suggest iohexol-240 is preferred to iohexol-300 for body computed tomography (CT) due to its lower cost and iodine load without statistically significant change in diagnostic quality of the examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1551505     DOI: 10.1007/bf01888525

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2356


  13 in total

1.  Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media.

Authors:  H Katayama; K Yamaguchi; T Kozuka; T Takashima; P Seez; K Matsuura
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  CT evaluation of suspected hepatic metastases: comparison of techniques for i.v. contrast enhancement.

Authors:  D M Paushter; R K Zeman; M L Scheibler; P L Choyke; M H Jaffe; L R Clark
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  The RACR survey of intravenous contrast media reactions. Final report.

Authors:  F J Palmer
Journal:  Australas Radiol       Date:  1988-11

4.  A comparison of diagnostic effectiveness and vascular side-effects of various diatrizoate salts used for intravenous pyelography.

Authors:  J B Penry; A Livingston
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1972-07       Impact factor: 2.350

5.  Low-osmolality contrast media: good news or bad?

Authors:  R G Evens
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Contrast media in abdominal computed tomography. A double blind clinical trial comparing a non-ionic (iohexol) and an ionic (metrizoate) contrast medium.

Authors:  I O Skalpe; H M Ostensen
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  Enhancement with water-soluble contrast media in computed tomography of the brain and abdomen. Survey and present state.

Authors:  I O Skalpe
Journal:  Acta Radiol Suppl       Date:  1983

8.  Contrast-enhanced CT of the liver and spleen: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents.

Authors:  R C Nelson; J L Chezmar; J E Peterson; M E Bernardino
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Contrast medium-induced adverse reactions: economic outcome.

Authors:  N R Powe; E P Steinberg; J E Erickson; R D Moore; C R Smith; R I White; J A Brinker; E K Fishman; S J Zinreich; M L Kinnison
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  A prospective trial of ionic vs nonionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects.

Authors:  G L Wolf; R L Arenson; A P Cross
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  1 in total

1.  A comparison of the use of contrast media with different iodine concentrations for multidetector CT of the kidney.

Authors:  Seung Chai Jung; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 3.500

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.