Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 188–197 | Cite as

Clinical and Economic Factors in the Selection of Low-Osmolality Contrast Media

  • William H. MatthaiJr
Review Article

Summary

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.

Keywords

Contrast Agent Contrast Medium Severe Reaction Anaphylactoid Reaction Severe Adverse Reaction 
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. Barbe R, Kirkorian G, Amiel M. Effects of contrast media on circulating blood volume. Acta Radiologica Diagnostica 21: 495–497, 1980Google Scholar
  2. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS, Vavasour HM, et al. A comparison of nonionic, low-osmolality radiocontrast agents with ionic, high-osmolality agents during cardiac catheterization. New England Journal of Medicine 326: 431–436, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Byrd L, Sherman RL. Radiocontrast-induced acute renal failure: a clinical and pathophysiologic review. Medicine 58: 270–279, 1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvo MV, del Val MP, Alvarez MM, Dominguez-Gil A. Decision analysis to assess cost-effectiveness of low-osmolality contrast medium for intravenous urography. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 49: 577–584, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Davidson CJ, Mark DB, Pieper KS, Kisslo KB, Hlatky MA, et al. Thrombotic and cardiovascular complications related to nonionic contrast media during cardiac catheterization: analysis of 8517 patients. American Journal of Cardiology 65: 1481–1484, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman RL, Jalowiec DA, Hill JA, Lambert CR. Contrast media-related complications during cardiac catheterization using Hexabrix or Renografin in high-risk patients. American Journal of Cardiology 61: 1334–1337, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber KH, Higgins CB, Huh Y, Koziol JA. Regional myocardial hemodynamic and metabolic effects of ionic and nonionic contrast media in normal and ischemic states. Circulation 65: 1307–1314, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gertz EW, Wisneski JA, Chiu D, Akin JR, Hu C. Clinical superiority of a new nonionic contrast agent (iopamidol) for cardiac angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 5: 250–258, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goel V, Deber RB, Detsky AS. Nonionic contrast media: economic analysis and health policy development. Canadian Medical Association Journal 140: 389–395, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenberger PA, Gutt L, Meyers SN. An immediate generalized reaction to iopamidol. Archives of Internal Medicine 147: 2208–2209, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenherger PA, Patterson R. Adverse reactions to radiocontrast material. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 21: 239–248, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grollman JH, Liu CK, Astone RA, Lurie MA. Thromboembolic complications in coronary angiography associated with the use of nonionic contrast medium. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 14: 159–164, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartman GW, Hattery RR, Witten DM, Williamson B. Mortality during excretory urography: Mayo Clinic experience. American Journal of Radiology 139: 919–922, 1982Google Scholar
  18. Higgins CB. Effects of contrast media on the conducting system of the heart. Radiology 124: 599–606, 1977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilai SK. Hemodynamic changes associated with the intra-arterial injection of contrast media. Radiology 86: 615–633, 1966Google Scholar
  20. Hill JA, Grabowski EF. Relationship or anticoagulation and radiologic contrast agents to thrombosis during coronary angiography and angioplasty: are there real concerns? Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 25: 200–208, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Hine AL, Lui D, Dawson P. Contrast media osmolality and plasma volume changes. Acta Radiologica Diagnostica 26: 753–756, 1985Google Scholar
  23. Hirshfeld JW, Kussmaul WG, DiBattiste PD, et al. The safety of cardiac angiography with conventional ionic contrast agents. American Journal of Cardiology 66: 355–361, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirshfield JW, Wieland J, Davis CA, Giles BD, Passione D, et al. Hemodynamic and electrocardiographic effects of ioversol during cardiac angiography: comparison with iopamidol and diatrizoate. Investigative Radiology 24: 138–144, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hlatky MA. Economic evaluation of low osmolality contrast media. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 21: 1710–1711, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hlakky MA, Morris KG, Pieper KS, Davidson CJ, Schwab SJ, et al. Randomized comparison of the cost and effectiveness of iopamidol and diatrizoate as contrast agents for cardiac angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 16: 871–877, 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iseri LT, Kaplan MA, Evans MJ, Nickel ED. Effect of concentrated contrast media during angiography on plasma volume and plasma osmolality. American Heart Journal 69: 154–158, 1965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobson PD, Rosenquist CJ. The introduction of low-osmolar contrast agents in radiology: medical, economic, legal, and public policy issues. Journal of the American Medical Association 260: 1586–1592, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, et al. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media: a report from the Japanese Committee on the safety of contrast media. Radiology 175: 621–628, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Katzberg RA, Morris TW, Lasser EC, DiMarco PL, Merguerian PA, et al. Acute systemic and renal hemodynamic effects of meglumine/sodium diatrizoate 76% and iopamidol in euvolemic and dehydrated dogs. Investigative Radiology 21: 793–797, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koeda T, Motegi t, Ichikawa T, Suzuki T, Kato M. Changes in hemodynamics due to the contrast medium during left ventriculography. Angiology 38: 825–832, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kopko PM, Smith DC, Bull BS. Thrombin generation in nonclottable mixtures of blood and nonionic contrast agents. Radiology 174: 459–461, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kozeny GA, Murdock DK, Euler DE, Hano JE, Scanlon PJ, et al. In vivo effects of acute changes in osmolality and sodium concentration on myocardial contractility. American Heart Journal 109: 290–296, 1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lasser EC. Etiology of anaphylactoid responses: the promise of nonionics. Investigative Radiology 20: 579–582, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lasser EC, Berry CC, Talner LB, et al. Pretreatment with corticosteroids to alleviate reactions to intravenous contrast material. New England Journal of Medicine 317: 845–849, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawrence V, Matthai WH, Hartmaier S. Comparative safety of high osmolality and low-osmolality radiographic contrast agents: report of a multidisciplinary working group. Investigative Radiology 27: 2–28, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levorstad K, Vatne K, Brodahl U, Laake B, Simonsen S, et al. Safety of the nonionic contrast medium omrtipaque in coronary angiography. Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology 12: 98–100, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lieberman P. Anaphylactoid reactions to radiocontrast material. Annals of Allergy 67: 91–100, 1991Google Scholar
  39. Matthai WH, Hirshfeld JW. Choice of contrast agents for cardiac angiography: a review and recommendations based on clinically important distinctions. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 22: 278–298, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matthai WH, Krol JM, Kussmaul WG, et al. A comparison of low with high osmolality contrast agents in cardiac angiography: identification of criteria for selective use. Circulation 89: 291–301, 1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Missri J, Jeresaty RM. Ventricular fibrillation during coronary angiography: reduced incidence with nonionic contrast media. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 19: 4–17, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmer FJ. The RACR survey of intravenous contrast media reactions. Australasian Radiology 32: 426–428, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piessens JH, Stammen F, Vrolix MC, Glazier JJ, Benit E, et al. Effects of an ionic versus a nonionic low osmolar contrast agent on the thrombotic complications of coronary angiography. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 28: 99–105, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Powe NR, Davidoff AJ, Moore RD, et al. Net costs from three perspectives of using low versus high osmolality contrast medium in diagnostic angiocardiography. Journal orthe American College of Cardiology 21: 1701–1709, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Powe NR, Steinberg EP, Erikson JE, Moore RD, Smith CR, et al. Contrast-medium induced adverse reactions: economic outcome. Radiology 169: 163–168, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Schrott KM, Behrends B, Clauss W, Kaufman J, Lehnert J, et al. Iohexol in excretory urography. Fortschritte der Medizin 104: 153–156, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Shehadi WH. Contrast media adverse reactions: occurrence, recurrence, and distribution patterns. Radiology 143: 11–17, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Shehadi WH, Toniolo G. Adverse reactions to contrast media. Radiology 137: 299–302, 1980PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Steinberg EP, Moore RD, Powe NR, et al. Safety and cost effectiveness of high-osmolality as compared with low-osmolality contrast material in patients undergoing cardiac angiography. New England Journal of Medicine 326: 425–430, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stormorken H. Effects of contrast media on the hemostatic and thrombotic mechanisms. Investigative Radiology 23(Suppl. 2): S318–S325, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thaler A, Saur HR. Hemodynamic changes after angiocardiography with a new osmolar contrast medium (sodium-meglumin-joxiglate). Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 9: 577–581, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vacek JL, Gersema L, Woods M, et al. Frequencies of reactions to iohexol versus ioxaglate. American Journal of Cardiology 66: 1277–1278, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Zuckerman LS, Friehling TD, Wolf NM, et al. Effect of calcium-binding additives on ventricular fibrillation and repolarization changes during coronary angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 10: 1249–1253, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • William H. MatthaiJr
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineCooper Hospital/University Medical CenterCamdenUSA

Personalised recommendations