AJR AJR-based Continuing Ed for Technologists
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bernardino, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bernardino, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, P. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 158, 665-667, Copyright © 1992 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Comparison of iohexol 300 and diatrizoate meglumine 60 for body CT: image quality, adverse reactions, and aborted/repeated examinations

ME Bernardino, EK Fishman, RB Jeffrey Jr and PC Brown
Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322.

Six hundred patients were prospectively randomized and given either diatrizoate meglumine 60 or iohexol 300 during dynamic contrast- enhanced body CT in order to compare image quality, contrast reactions, and the number of aborted studies or studies in which images had to be repeated. Three hundred two patients received iohexol 300, and 298 patients received diatrizoate meglumine 60. Thirty-nine percent (119/302) of the patients given iohexol 300 and 63% (188/298) of the patients given diatrizoate meglumine 60 had at least one adverse reaction thought to be related to contrast material during, or within 24 hr of, the body CT scan. When reactions of discomfort (heat or warmth, flushing, bad taste) were excluded, 16% (48/302) of the patients who received iohexol and 33% (99/298) of the patients who were given diatrizoate meglumine 60 had at least one adverse reaction. The differences in both types of reactions between the two agents were significant (p less than .001). Among scans evaluated for study quality, 71% (214/302) of the iohexol 300 group and 62% (184/298) of the diatrizoate meglumine 60 group had optimal enhancement (p = .02). However, when the optimal and adequate categories were combined, 301 of 302 patients given iohexol 300 and 292 of 298 patients given diatrizoate meglumine 60 had diagnostic-quality studies (no statistical difference). Studies were not terminated nor were images repeated in 97% (292/302) of the patients given iohexol 300 and in 94% (280/298) of those given diatrizoate meglumine 60. The CT study was repeated because of movement during the contrast injection or aborted because of contrast-related reactions in 0.7% of the patients given iohexol 300 and in 3.0% of the patients given diatrizoate meglumine 60. This difference was statistically significant (p = .04). Our results suggest that the difference in image quality, number of adverse reactions, and number of aborted/repeated CT scans performed with iohexol 300 or diatrizoate meglumine 60 are not sufficiently different to warrant conversion to nonionic agents for body CT scans.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
R. Wijetunga, B. S. Tan, J. C. Rouse, G. W. Bigg-Wither, and B. D. Doust
Diagnostic Accuracy of Focused Appendiceal CT in Clinically Equivocal Cases of Acute Appendicitis
Radiology, December 1, 2001; 221(3): 747 - 753.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.