Clinical and Economic Factors in the Selection of Low-Osmolality Contrast Media
- 7 Downloads
Both high- and low-osmolality contrast media are available for most radiographic procedures requiring iodinated contrast material. Newer low-osmolality contrast media cost much more than conventional high-osmolality formulations but cause fewer adverse reactions. However, most of these reactions are mild and easily treated, and do not affect the outcome of the procedure. Whether these additional clinical benefits justify the added cost is a crucial question which has not been answered. This review introduces some of the economic and clinical issues on which the choice of contrast media should be based, Low-osmality contrast agents are not cost effective considering current pricing strategies and current inability to select patients at increased risk of an adverse event. Therefore, a better understanding of these adverse events and their mechanism takes on added importance.
KeywordsContrast Agent Contrast Medium Severe Reaction Anaphylactoid Reaction Severe Adverse Reaction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barbe R, Kirkorian G, Amiel M. Effects of contrast media on circulating blood volume. Acta Radiologica Diagnostica 21: 495–497, 1980Google Scholar
- Bashore TM, Davidson CJ, Mark DB, Kisslo K, Hlatky MA, et al. Iopamidol use in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a retrospective analysis of 3313 patients. Cardiology 5: 6–9, 1988Google Scholar
- Bettman MA, Higgins CB. Comparison of an ionic with a nonionic contrast agent for cardiac angiography: results of multicenter trial. Investigative Radiology 20(Suppl.): 570–574, 1985Google Scholar
- Bettman MA, Robbins A, Braun SD, et al. Contrast venography of the leg: diagnostic efficacy, tolerance, and complication rates with ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology 165: 113–116, 1987Google Scholar
- Caro JJ, Trindade E, McGregor M. The cost-effectiveness of replacing high-osmolality with low-osmolality contrast media. American Journal of Radiology 159: 869–874, 1992Google Scholar
- Hartman GW, Hattery RR, Witten DM, Williamson B. Mortality during excretory urography: Mayo Clinic experience. American Journal of Radiology 139: 919–922, 1982Google Scholar
- Hilai SK. Hemodynamic changes associated with the intra-arterial injection of contrast media. Radiology 86: 615–633, 1966Google Scholar
- Hill JA, Winniford M, Van Fossen DB, Goldfarb S, Murphy MJ, et al. Nephrotoxicity following cardiac angiography: a randomized double-blind multicenter trial of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1194 patients. Circulation 84:(Suppl. 2): 333, 1991Google Scholar
- Hine AL, Lui D, Dawson P. Contrast media osmolality and plasma volume changes. Acta Radiologica Diagnostica 26: 753–756, 1985Google Scholar
- Lieberman P. Anaphylactoid reactions to radiocontrast material. Annals of Allergy 67: 91–100, 1991Google Scholar
- Wolf GL, Arenson RL, Cross AP. A prospective trial of ionic vs. nonionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects. American Journal of Radiology 152: 939–944, 1989Google Scholar