Literature DB >> 2023999

Intravascular contrast media. Ionic versus nonionic: current status.

B L McClennan1, H O Stolberg.   

Abstract

The development of LOCM is one of the most important medical discoveries made at the end of this century. In developing nonionic compounds, Almén showed that it was possible to decrease the osmolality by a factor of 2 and also thereby reduce the chemotoxicity by as much as a factor of 20. Serious adverse side effects after the intravascular administration of contrast material are caused by a combination of osmotoxic and chemotoxic properties of an individual contrast media molecule as well as the ionic composition of the agent when in solution. Worldwide clinical experience with the use of LOCM, ionic and nonionic, consistently has shown the new material to be safer and more comfortable in clinical practice. Some form of limited use of LOCM is now part of virtually every radiologist's daily practice, and the focus is turning to the low-risk-no-risk group. There are gray areas between risk categories, with some evidence even suggesting that the 20- to 40-year-old age group may be at risk to the same or even a greater degree than other commonly accepted risk groups such as the elderly. The future promises even better and safer but, in all likelihood, expensive, contrast agents for intravascular use. The ultimate decision on choice of contrast or the fate of LOCM rests with public policy makers, organized medicine, and the individual physician and patient. Based on penetration of the marketplace (nearly 50%) in terms of LOCM sales in 1990, there is a growing awareness within our specialty as well as the public sector of the improvements offered by LOCM. It is unlikely that a major conversion back to the universal use of HOCM will ever occur. As long as cost remains the major focus of the debate over the choice, however, physicians need to be informed advocates, familiar with the science, yet sensitive to the economic implications of the decisions they make to best serve the interests of their patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2023999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  6 in total

1.  Observation of ureteric diameter in negative intravenous urogram in hospital universiti kebangsaan malaysia.

Authors:  Siong Lung Wong; Hamzaini Abdul Hamid
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2010-04

Review 2.  Iomeprol: a review of its use as a contrast medium.

Authors:  M Dooley; B Jarvis
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Decreased infarct volume and intracranial hemorrhage associated with intra-arterial nonionic iso-osmolar contrast material in an MCA occlusion/reperfusion model.

Authors:  H Morales; A Lu; Y Kurosawa; J F Clark; J Leach; K Weiss; T Tomsick
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Outcome Differences between Intra-Arterial Iso- and Low-Osmolality Iodinated Radiographic Contrast Media in the Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial.

Authors:  T A Tomsick; L D Foster; D S Liebeskind; M D Hill; J Carrozella; M Goyal; R von Kummer; A M Demchuk; I Dzialowski; V Puetz; T Jovin; H Morales; Y Y Palesch; J Broderick; P Khatri; S D Yeatts
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  [Comparative Analysis of Image Quality and Adverse Events between Iopamidol 250 and Ioversol 320 in Hepatic Angiography for Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization].

Authors:  Min Jae Gu; Jae Hyuck Yi; Young Hwan Kim; Hee Jung Lee; Ung Rae Kang; Seung Woo Ji
Journal:  Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe Chi       Date:  2020-01-31

6.  Contrast induced nephropathy in urology.

Authors:  Viji Samuel Thomson; Kumar Narayanan; J Chandra Singh
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009 Oct-Dec
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.