Clinical experience with iopromide

Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography

Jeffrey H. Newhouse, Jaime Landman, Erich Lang, E. Stephen Amis, Stanford Goldman, Ron Khazan, Richard Leder, Marcus Hedgcock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Iopromide is a nonionic monomeric contrast agent. Initial laboratory and clinical data have shown that it is relatively safe. Efficacy for excretory urography has been shown to be good, comparable with other lowosmolality agents. The authors attempted to confirm these impressions in a randomized, double-blind comparison with equivalent doses of ioversol and iopamidol. METHODS. Two hundred adult patients undergoing excretory urography were studied. One hundred received iopromide, 40 received ioversol, and 60 received iopamidol (300 mg I/kg) as an intravenous bolus. Urographic films (obtained 1, 5, 15, and 20 minutes after the bolus, and postvoid) were interpreted by an observer blinded to contrast type. Visualization of renal parenchyma, pelvis and calyces, ureters, and bladder was independently assessed as excellent, good, poor, or nonvisualized. Vital signs were recorded before, 30 to 60 minutes after, and 24 hours after injection. Adverse reactions were sought, physical examinations were performed, and standard hematology and serum chemistry values were measured before and 1 day after injection; a 72-hour serum creatinine level was also measured. RESULTS. Ninety-eight percent of visualization scores were good or excellent; no significant differences among iopromide, iopamidol, and ioversol were found, nor were there any significant differences among groups in vital signs. Only one patient experienced a contrast-related physical examination change (subcutaneous extravasation). No significant changes with regard to hematology or serum chemistry values were observed; there was no contrast-induced nephropathy. Mild adverse reactions were experienced by 10% of patients; there were no significant differences in reaction rates among contrast agents. CONCLUSIONS. Iopromide at a dose of approximately 300 mg I/kg is safe and effective as an excretory urographic agent and is comparable in performance with ioversol and iopamidol.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S68-S73
JournalInvestigative Radiology
Volume29
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

ioversol
iopromide
Iopamidol
Urography
Safety
Vital Signs
Hematology
Contrast Media
Physical Examination
Serum
Injections
Kidney Pelvis
Ureter
Creatinine
Urinary Bladder

Keywords

  • Excretory urography
  • Extravasation
  • Low-osmolality contrast agent
  • Urogram

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Newhouse, J. H., Landman, J., Lang, E., Amis, E. S., Goldman, S., Khazan, R., ... Hedgcock, M. (1994). Clinical experience with iopromide: Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography. Investigative Radiology, 29, S68-S73.

Clinical experience with iopromide : Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography. / Newhouse, Jeffrey H.; Landman, Jaime; Lang, Erich; Amis, E. Stephen; Goldman, Stanford; Khazan, Ron; Leder, Richard; Hedgcock, Marcus.

In: Investigative Radiology, Vol. 29, 1994, p. S68-S73.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Newhouse, JH, Landman, J, Lang, E, Amis, ES, Goldman, S, Khazan, R, Leder, R & Hedgcock, M 1994, 'Clinical experience with iopromide: Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography', Investigative Radiology, vol. 29, pp. S68-S73.
Newhouse JH, Landman J, Lang E, Amis ES, Goldman S, Khazan R et al. Clinical experience with iopromide: Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography. Investigative Radiology. 1994;29:S68-S73.
Newhouse, Jeffrey H. ; Landman, Jaime ; Lang, Erich ; Amis, E. Stephen ; Goldman, Stanford ; Khazan, Ron ; Leder, Richard ; Hedgcock, Marcus. / Clinical experience with iopromide : Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography. In: Investigative Radiology. 1994 ; Vol. 29. pp. S68-S73.
@article{b80a8252ae4a497580506823114b1580,
title = "Clinical experience with iopromide: Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography",
abstract = "RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Iopromide is a nonionic monomeric contrast agent. Initial laboratory and clinical data have shown that it is relatively safe. Efficacy for excretory urography has been shown to be good, comparable with other lowosmolality agents. The authors attempted to confirm these impressions in a randomized, double-blind comparison with equivalent doses of ioversol and iopamidol. METHODS. Two hundred adult patients undergoing excretory urography were studied. One hundred received iopromide, 40 received ioversol, and 60 received iopamidol (300 mg I/kg) as an intravenous bolus. Urographic films (obtained 1, 5, 15, and 20 minutes after the bolus, and postvoid) were interpreted by an observer blinded to contrast type. Visualization of renal parenchyma, pelvis and calyces, ureters, and bladder was independently assessed as excellent, good, poor, or nonvisualized. Vital signs were recorded before, 30 to 60 minutes after, and 24 hours after injection. Adverse reactions were sought, physical examinations were performed, and standard hematology and serum chemistry values were measured before and 1 day after injection; a 72-hour serum creatinine level was also measured. RESULTS. Ninety-eight percent of visualization scores were good or excellent; no significant differences among iopromide, iopamidol, and ioversol were found, nor were there any significant differences among groups in vital signs. Only one patient experienced a contrast-related physical examination change (subcutaneous extravasation). No significant changes with regard to hematology or serum chemistry values were observed; there was no contrast-induced nephropathy. Mild adverse reactions were experienced by 10{\%} of patients; there were no significant differences in reaction rates among contrast agents. CONCLUSIONS. Iopromide at a dose of approximately 300 mg I/kg is safe and effective as an excretory urographic agent and is comparable in performance with ioversol and iopamidol.",
keywords = "Excretory urography, Extravasation, Low-osmolality contrast agent, Urogram",
author = "Newhouse, {Jeffrey H.} and Jaime Landman and Erich Lang and Amis, {E. Stephen} and Stanford Goldman and Ron Khazan and Richard Leder and Marcus Hedgcock",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "S68--S73",
journal = "Investigative Radiology",
issn = "0020-9996",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical experience with iopromide

T2 - Intravenous: Efficacy and safety of iopromide for excretory urography

AU - Newhouse, Jeffrey H.

AU - Landman, Jaime

AU - Lang, Erich

AU - Amis, E. Stephen

AU - Goldman, Stanford

AU - Khazan, Ron

AU - Leder, Richard

AU - Hedgcock, Marcus

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Iopromide is a nonionic monomeric contrast agent. Initial laboratory and clinical data have shown that it is relatively safe. Efficacy for excretory urography has been shown to be good, comparable with other lowosmolality agents. The authors attempted to confirm these impressions in a randomized, double-blind comparison with equivalent doses of ioversol and iopamidol. METHODS. Two hundred adult patients undergoing excretory urography were studied. One hundred received iopromide, 40 received ioversol, and 60 received iopamidol (300 mg I/kg) as an intravenous bolus. Urographic films (obtained 1, 5, 15, and 20 minutes after the bolus, and postvoid) were interpreted by an observer blinded to contrast type. Visualization of renal parenchyma, pelvis and calyces, ureters, and bladder was independently assessed as excellent, good, poor, or nonvisualized. Vital signs were recorded before, 30 to 60 minutes after, and 24 hours after injection. Adverse reactions were sought, physical examinations were performed, and standard hematology and serum chemistry values were measured before and 1 day after injection; a 72-hour serum creatinine level was also measured. RESULTS. Ninety-eight percent of visualization scores were good or excellent; no significant differences among iopromide, iopamidol, and ioversol were found, nor were there any significant differences among groups in vital signs. Only one patient experienced a contrast-related physical examination change (subcutaneous extravasation). No significant changes with regard to hematology or serum chemistry values were observed; there was no contrast-induced nephropathy. Mild adverse reactions were experienced by 10% of patients; there were no significant differences in reaction rates among contrast agents. CONCLUSIONS. Iopromide at a dose of approximately 300 mg I/kg is safe and effective as an excretory urographic agent and is comparable in performance with ioversol and iopamidol.

AB - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Iopromide is a nonionic monomeric contrast agent. Initial laboratory and clinical data have shown that it is relatively safe. Efficacy for excretory urography has been shown to be good, comparable with other lowosmolality agents. The authors attempted to confirm these impressions in a randomized, double-blind comparison with equivalent doses of ioversol and iopamidol. METHODS. Two hundred adult patients undergoing excretory urography were studied. One hundred received iopromide, 40 received ioversol, and 60 received iopamidol (300 mg I/kg) as an intravenous bolus. Urographic films (obtained 1, 5, 15, and 20 minutes after the bolus, and postvoid) were interpreted by an observer blinded to contrast type. Visualization of renal parenchyma, pelvis and calyces, ureters, and bladder was independently assessed as excellent, good, poor, or nonvisualized. Vital signs were recorded before, 30 to 60 minutes after, and 24 hours after injection. Adverse reactions were sought, physical examinations were performed, and standard hematology and serum chemistry values were measured before and 1 day after injection; a 72-hour serum creatinine level was also measured. RESULTS. Ninety-eight percent of visualization scores were good or excellent; no significant differences among iopromide, iopamidol, and ioversol were found, nor were there any significant differences among groups in vital signs. Only one patient experienced a contrast-related physical examination change (subcutaneous extravasation). No significant changes with regard to hematology or serum chemistry values were observed; there was no contrast-induced nephropathy. Mild adverse reactions were experienced by 10% of patients; there were no significant differences in reaction rates among contrast agents. CONCLUSIONS. Iopromide at a dose of approximately 300 mg I/kg is safe and effective as an excretory urographic agent and is comparable in performance with ioversol and iopamidol.

KW - Excretory urography

KW - Extravasation

KW - Low-osmolality contrast agent

KW - Urogram

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028233567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028233567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - S68-S73

JO - Investigative Radiology

JF - Investigative Radiology

SN - 0020-9996

ER -