Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Comment to “Transplacental passage of a nonionic contrast agent”

  • 65 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Albrecht A, Golebiowski M, Kornienko VN, Nikitin V, Palmers Y, Trzebicki J, Twarkowski P, Wegener R (1999) A double-blind, prospective, randomized, multicenter group comparison study of iopromide 240 vs iohexol 240 in myelography. Eur Radiol 9:1901–1908

  2. 2.

    Caillé JM, Allard M (1988) Neurotoxicity of hydrosoluble iodine contrast media. Invest Radiol 23:S210–S212

  3. 3.

    Haughton VM, Papke A, Hyland D, Drayer BP, Osborn AG, Maravilla K, Hilal SK (1994) Safety and efficacy of iopromide in cerebral arteriography. Invest Radiol 29:S94–S97

  4. 4.

    Kugoev AI, Krause W, Timerbaeva SL, Wegener R (1999) Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of iopromide 240 after lumbar myelography. Invest Radiol 34:692–697

  5. 5.

    Vanhaesebrouck P, Verstraete AG, De Praeter C, Smets K, Zecic A, Craen M (2005) Transplacental passage of a nonionic contrast agent. Eur J Pediatr 164:408–410

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Alexander Michel.

Additional information

Letter to the editor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Michel, A., Jacob, G.B. Comment to “Transplacental passage of a nonionic contrast agent”. Eur J Pediatr 165, 667 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-005-0071-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contrast Agent
  • Diagnostic Image
  • Regulatory Approval
  • Cerebral Angiography
  • Severe Reaction