Literature DB >> 23564884

Acceptability of oral iodinated contrast media: a head-to-head comparison of four media.

A Pollentine1, E Ngan-Soo, P McCoubrie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the palatability of iodinated oral contrast media commonly used in abdominopelvic CT and CT colonography (CTC).
METHODS: 80 volunteers assessed the palatability of a 20-ml sample of a standard 30 mg ml(-1) dilution of Omnipaque® (iohexol; GE Healthcare, Cork, Ireland), Telebrix® (meglumine ioxithalamate; Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France), Gastromiro® (iopamidol; Bracco, High Wycombe, UK) and Gastrografin® (sodium diatrizoate and meglumine diatrizoate; Bayer, Newbury, UK) in a computer-generated random order.
RESULTS: Gastrografin is rated significantly less palatable than the remaining media (p<0.005). Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable than Gastromiro. No difference existed between Omnipaque and Telebrix. 39% of participants would refuse to consume the quantities of Gastrografin required for a CTC examination compared with Telebrix (7%) and Omnipaque (9%) (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable than both Gastromiro and Gastrografin, with participants more willing to ingest them in larger quantities as well as being less expensive. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable iodinated oral contrast media than both Gastromiro and Gastrografin, which has potential implications in compliance with both abdominopelvic CT and CTC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23564884      PMCID: PMC3635798          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20120636

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  20 in total

1.  Telebrix: a better-tasting oral contrast agent for abdominal computed tomography.

Authors:  D B Bach
Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 2.248

2.  Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability.

Authors:  A Pollentine; A Mortimer; P McCoubrie; L Archer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  [Inter-individual testing of water-soluble oral contrast media with reference to their diagnostic value, side effects and taste].

Authors:  A Stäbler; U Fink; S Siuda; S Neville
Journal:  Rontgenblatter       Date:  1989-05

4.  Intra-individual comparison of patient acceptability of multidetector-row CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema.

Authors:  S A Taylor; S Halligan; D Burling; P Bassett; C I Bartram
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.350

5.  Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease.

Authors:  Maria H Svensson; Elisabeth Svensson; Anders Lasson; Mikael Hellström
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Riccardo Iannaccone; Andrea Laghi; Carlo Catalano; Filippo Mangiapane; Antonietta Lamazza; Alberto Schillaci; Giovanni Sinibaldi; Takamichi Murakami; Paolo Sammartino; Masatoshi Hori; Francesca Piacentini; Italo Nofroni; Vincenzo Stipa; Roberto Passariello
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Comparison of Telebrix Gastro and Gastrografin in abdominal computed tomography.

Authors:  P F van Waes; M A Feldberg; P Barth
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences.

Authors:  Thomas M Gluecker; C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Kenneth P Offord; Ann M Harris; Lynn A Wilson; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  [Gastromiro vs gastrografin vs prontobario CAT for computerized tomography. Multicenter study].

Authors:  G A Rollandi; P F Curone; C Pastorino; B Fanti; C Martinoli; F Bonati; A Montesi; G C Fabrizzi; L Dini; A Pesaresi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation.

Authors:  Stephen L Ristvedt; Elizabeth G McFarland; Leonard B Weinstock; Eric P Thyssen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Oral contrast for CT in patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal and pelvic pain: what should be its current role?

Authors:  Ania Z Kielar; Michael N Patlas; Douglas S Katz
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-05-11

2.  Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography.

Authors:  Brandon Johnson; J Louis Hinshaw; Jessica B Robbins; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Iohexol versus diatrizoate for fecal/fluid tagging during CT colonography performed with cathartic preparation: comparison of examination quality.

Authors:  Bohyun Kim; Seong Ho Park; Gil-Sun Hong; Ju Hee Lee; Jong Seok Lee; Hyun Jin Kim; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-01-11       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Evaluating suspected small bowel obstruction with the water-soluble contrast challenge.

Authors:  Edward M Lawrence; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 3.039

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.