Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 107–110 | Cite as

Image quality and safety in pediatric urography using an ionic and a non-ionic iodinated contrast agent

  • T. Nybonde
  • H. Wahlgren
  • O. Brekke
  • D. T. Kristofferssen
  • W. Mortensson
Originals

Abstract

The safety and diagnostic efficacy of the new non-ionic, monomeric contrast medium iopentol (Imagopaque) were evaluated and compared with those of the ionic medium metrizoate (Isopaque), in urography in children in a randomized, double-blind, parallel study. The trial comprised 59 children aged from 3 months to 8 years; children with predefined risk factors were not included. The difference in attenuation between the renal and perirenal tissue, assessed from film density measurements, was chosen as the main variable. Diagnostic efficacy was also evaluated subjectively from demarcation of the kidney and the pelvic structures. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the diagnostic efficacy. Serious adverse events did not occur in either group. Mild to moderate, transient adverse events were significantly less frequent in the iopentol group than in the metrizoate group, but in no case was medical treatment required. There were no changes or trends toward changes of clinical importance in either group, in serum chemistry variables measured in blood samples taken 2 min after injection of contrast medium compared to baseline values.

Keywords

Contrast Agent Contrast Medium Chemistry Variable Parallel Study Serum Chemistry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boijsen E, Kormano M (Eds) (1987) Iopentol. Chemistry, toxicology and pharmacology of a non-ionic contrast medium. Acta Radiol [Suppl] 137Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrew E, Sveen K, Lambrechts M, Lillevold P-E (1990) Total iopentol profile — overall results from clinical trials. Excerpta Med Int Congr Series 909: 189Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almén T (1989) Relations between chemical structure, animal toxicity and clinical adverse effects of contrast media. Excerpta Med Int Congr Series 816: 25Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology 175: 621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golman K, Almén T (1984) Urographic contrast media and methods of investigative uroradiology. In: Sovak M (ed) Radiocontrast agents. (Handbook of experimental pharmacology, vol 73) Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 127Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parks CM and Thompson PA (1990) Iopentol in intravenous urography. A randomized double-blind study versus diatrizoate. Excerpta Med Int Congr Ser 909: 97Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuur KH (1990) Iopentol 350 mg I/ml in urography. A doubleblind randomized two-group trial versus ioxithalamate for comparison. Excerpta Med Int Congr Ser 909: 101Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorulf H (1983) Iohexol compared with diatrizoate in pediatric urography. Acta Radiol [Suppl] 366: 42Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bolz KD, Skalpe IO, Gutteberg TJ (1984) Iohexol and metrizoate in urography in children. Acta Radiol Diagn 25: 155Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Nybonde
    • 1
  • H. Wahlgren
    • 1
  • O. Brekke
    • 2
  • D. T. Kristofferssen
    • 2
  • W. Mortensson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Radiology, The Karolinska InstituteSt. Göran's Children's HospitalStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Nycomed Imaging ASOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations