RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the safety and imaging efficacy of iodixanol-270 (270 mg I/ml), iodixanol-320 (320 mg I/ml), both of which are isosmolal to blood, and iohexol-300 (300 mg I/ml) for body computed tomography (CT) scanning. METHODS:One hundred twenty-six patients from the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Temple University Hospital scheduled to undergo body CT examinations were randomly assigned to receive either iodixanol-270, iodixanol-320, or iohexol-300. Patients were monitored with questioning and vital signs before injection, immediately after injection, and at 24 and 48 hr. Extensive laboratory evaluation also was performed. RESULTS: No serious reactions or deaths occurred in any group. The occurrence of overall minor adverse events (usually warmth, headache, taste distortion, rash) was similar for the different groups. Laboratory results showed no significant difference across groups. There was no significant difference in image quality detected among groups. CONCLUSION: There was no detectable difference in safety and imaging efficacy among the three contrast groups in this study. However, patients from the University of Wisconsin experienced significantly less injection discomfort with iodixanol-270 than with iohexol-300. Large clinical studies may more definitively determine the presence and nature of the relative advantages of iodixanol compared with currently available ionic and nonionic contrast agents.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the safety and imaging efficacy of iodixanol-270 (270 mg I/ml), iodixanol-320 (320 mg I/ml), both of which are isosmolal to blood, and iohexol-300 (300 mg I/ml) for body computed tomography (CT) scanning. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients from the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Temple University Hospital scheduled to undergo body CT examinations were randomly assigned to receive either iodixanol-270, iodixanol-320, or iohexol-300. Patients were monitored with questioning and vital signs before injection, immediately after injection, and at 24 and 48 hr. Extensive laboratory evaluation also was performed. RESULTS: No serious reactions or deaths occurred in any group. The occurrence of overall minor adverse events (usually warmth, headache, taste distortion, rash) was similar for the different groups. Laboratory results showed no significant difference across groups. There was no significant difference in image quality detected among groups. CONCLUSION: There was no detectable difference in safety and imaging efficacy among the three contrast groups in this study. However, patients from the University of Wisconsin experienced significantly less injection discomfort with iodixanol-270 than with iohexol-300. Large clinical studies may more definitively determine the presence and nature of the relative advantages of iodixanol compared with currently available ionic and nonionic contrast agents.