OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare iopamidol 370, which is a low-osmolar contrast medium and iodixanol 320, which is an iso-osmolar contrast medium, in terms of image quality and nonserious adverse effects that have the potential to influence the image quality in a 16-slice multi-detector row computed tomography coronary angiography. METHODS:Sixty patients were divided into two groups to receive iodixanol 320 or iopamidol 370. Image quality was assessed, using a five-point grading scale. Differences in the mean attenuation (Hounsfield units) at the origin of the coronary arteries and on the ascending aorta in both the groups were compared. The number and intensity of adverse effects were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean attenuation values of the ascending aorta and the origins of the coronary arteries for the two groups showed no significant difference (P≥0.41). There was no significant difference in terms of image quality between the two groups on all evaluated segments. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of adverse effects (P=0.001) between the two groups. However, in both the iodixanol group and the iopamidol group, there was no significant difference in terms of image quality between the patients with and without adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The frequency of adverse effects is lower in the iodixanol group than the iopamidol group. Iodixanol 320 can provide both vascular enhancement and image quality, which is similar to iopamidol 370 in a 16-slice multi-detector row computed tomography coronary angiography. There was no significant difference in terms of overall image quality between the patients with and without adverse effects in either of the groups.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare iopamidol 370, which is a low-osmolar contrast medium and iodixanol 320, which is an iso-osmolar contrast medium, in terms of image quality and nonserious adverse effects that have the potential to influence the image quality in a 16-slice multi-detector row computed tomography coronary angiography. METHODS: Sixty patients were divided into two groups to receive iodixanol 320 or iopamidol 370. Image quality was assessed, using a five-point grading scale. Differences in the mean attenuation (Hounsfield units) at the origin of the coronary arteries and on the ascending aorta in both the groups were compared. The number and intensity of adverse effects were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean attenuation values of the ascending aorta and the origins of the coronary arteries for the two groups showed no significant difference (P≥0.41). There was no significant difference in terms of image quality between the two groups on all evaluated segments. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of adverse effects (P=0.001) between the two groups. However, in both the iodixanol group and the iopamidol group, there was no significant difference in terms of image quality between the patients with and without adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The frequency of adverse effects is lower in the iodixanol group than the iopamidol group. Iodixanol 320 can provide both vascular enhancement and image quality, which is similar to iopamidol 370 in a 16-slice multi-detector row computed tomography coronary angiography. There was no significant difference in terms of overall image quality between the patients with and without adverse effects in either of the groups.