Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Radiology and the Law pp 176–178Cite as

Ionic Versus Nonionic Contrast Material

  • Chapter

  • 298 Accesses

Abstract

Currently, there are two major categories of iodinated contrast agents—high and low osmolar. With high-osmolar (“ionic”) contrast there is a small, but well-recognized, risk of adverse reactions, some of which are life threatening. However, the vast majority of patients receiving highosmolar contrast do not experience any significant side effects. Lowosmolar (“non-ionic”) contrast has a substantially lower rate of serious reactions (though not fatalities), but is considerably more expensive even in view of a significant decrease in price over the past few years.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Endnotes

  1. Smith JJ. Intravenous contrast agents: adverse reactions. In: Risk Management. Test and Syllabus. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999: 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dunnick NR. Patient outcome from ionic versus nonionic contrast agents (answer to question). AJR 1995; 164: 1547.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hopper KD. Contrast for bolus injections in helical CT (answer to question). AJR 1996; 166: 715.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Berlin L. Ionic versus nonionic contrast media. AJR 1996; 167: 1095–1097.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith JJ. Intravenous contrast agents: adverse reactions. In: Risk Management. Test and Syllabus. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999: 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

  8. American College of Radiology. ACR Standard for Excretory Urography. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Berlin L. Ionic versus nonionic contrast media. AJR 1996; 167: 1095–1097.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith JJ. Intravenous contrast agents: adverse reactions. In: Risk Management. Test and Syllabus. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999: 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Alameda County Medical Center, 94602, Oakland, CA, USA

    Ronald L. Eisenberg M.D., J.D. (Chairman, Clinical Professor of Radiology)

  2. University of California School of Medicine at San Francisco and Davis, USA

    Ronald L. Eisenberg M.D., J.D. (Chairman, Clinical Professor of Radiology)

Authors
  1. Ronald L. Eisenberg M.D., J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eisenberg, R.L. (2004). Ionic Versus Nonionic Contrast Material. In: Radiology and the Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2040-4_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2040-4_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-40309-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-2040-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation