PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate adverse events (AEs) in patients who underwent nonionic monomeric or dimeric contrastmedia-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and to compare these effects with AEs in patients who underwent unenhanced CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethics committee approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients were randomly assigned to the dimeric group, monomeric group, or concurrent control group. Acute (occurring during or within 1 hour after contrast agent injection) and delayed (occurring between 1 hour and 7 days after contrast agent injection) AEs were evaluated and categorized (mild, not requiring treatment; moderate, self-limiting AE requiring simple treatment; severe, AE requiring extensive treatment or endangering life). The two-sided Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS:A total of 895 patients were recruited. Acute AEs were noted significantly (P < .05) more often in the monomeric group (44.8% [133 of 297 patients]) than in the dimeric (23.7% [71 of 300 patients]) or control (9.4% [28 of 298 patients]) groups. Two moderate acute AEs were noted in one patient in each contrast agent group; all other acute AEs were mild. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of delayed AEs between the dimeric and monomeric groups (53.1% [139 of 262 patients] vs 50.8% [131 of 258 patients]). Delayed cutaneous AEs were noted significantly (P < .05) more often in the dimeric group. A total 16 AEs (2.0%) were moderate; no AE was severe. CONCLUSION: The dimeric contrast agent caused fewer acute AEs than the monomeric contrast agent; however, the dimeric and monomeric agents caused a similar overall number of delayed AEs. Delayed cutaneous symptoms were noted more often with the dimeric contrast agent. Both contrast agents were safe in that no severe AEs and only a few moderate AEs were observed. RSNA, 2006
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate adverse events (AEs) in patients who underwent nonionic monomeric or dimeric contrast media-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and to compare these effects with AEs in patients who underwent unenhanced CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethics committee approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients were randomly assigned to the dimeric group, monomeric group, or concurrent control group. Acute (occurring during or within 1 hour after contrast agent injection) and delayed (occurring between 1 hour and 7 days after contrast agent injection) AEs were evaluated and categorized (mild, not requiring treatment; moderate, self-limiting AE requiring simple treatment; severe, AE requiring extensive treatment or endangering life). The two-sided Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 895 patients were recruited. Acute AEs were noted significantly (P < .05) more often in the monomeric group (44.8% [133 of 297 patients]) than in the dimeric (23.7% [71 of 300 patients]) or control (9.4% [28 of 298 patients]) groups. Two moderate acute AEs were noted in one patient in each contrast agent group; all other acute AEs were mild. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of delayed AEs between the dimeric and monomeric groups (53.1% [139 of 262 patients] vs 50.8% [131 of 258 patients]). Delayed cutaneous AEs were noted significantly (P < .05) more often in the dimeric group. A total 16 AEs (2.0%) were moderate; no AE was severe. CONCLUSION: The dimeric contrast agent caused fewer acute AEs than the monomeric contrast agent; however, the dimeric and monomeric agents caused a similar overall number of delayed AEs. Delayed cutaneous symptoms were noted more often with the dimeric contrast agent. Both contrast agents were safe in that no severe AEs and only a few moderate AEs were observed. RSNA, 2006
Authors: Marie-France Bellin; Fulvio Stacul; Judith A W Webb; Henrik S Thomsen; Sameh K Morcos; Torsten Almén; Peter Aspelin; Olivier Clement; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Peter Reimer; Aart van der Molen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-07-16 Impact factor: 5.315