ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Various hemodynamic changes occur during left ventriculography, such as myocardial depression, hypotension, peripheral circulatory changes, ECG changes(such as arrhythmias and conduction abnormalities) and anaphylactic reaction etc. These effects are somewhat caused by osmolality, ionic concentration of Na+, viscosity and molecular weight of contrast dye and underlying various heart disease itself during left ventriculography. We compared the hemodynamic differences between ionic(ioxaglate) and non-ionic(iopromide) low osmolar contrast agents during routine ventriculography. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double blind study of 124 patients underwent left ventriculography, we examined the various hemodynamic effects of the two contrast agents on left ventricle. All subjects were divided into 2 groups : ioxaglate and iopromide groups. Also, each agent was used in randomized double blind fashion in both groups ; normal control subjects(14 in ioxaglate group : 12 in iopromide group) and subjects whose ejection fraction less than 50%(12 in ioxaglate group : 16 in iopromide group). Left ventricular systolic pressure(LVSP), left ventricular end-diastolic pressure(LVEDP), maximum dP/dt, (dP/dt)/P ratio, peak - dP/dt and Tau were obtained immediately before and left ventriculography. RESULTS: 1) In total(normal+angina+MI) subjects of both groups, LVEDP(p<0.001) and maximum dP/dt(p<0.001) were increased and T(au) was reduced significantly(p<0.05). But LVSP(p<0.001) and peak - dP/dt(p<0.005) were increased significantly only in ioxaglate group. 2)In normal(control) subjects, there were no significant differences in both groups, except LVEDP that was increased by equal magnitude(p<0.001). 3) In subjects with ejection fraction less than 50%, there were no significant hemodynamic differences in both contrast agent groups bur LVEDP increased significantly in both groups(p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This present study showed that both ionic(ioxaglate) and non-ionic(iopromide) low osmolar contrast agents were very safe without any significant side effects except two agents caused an increase in LVEDP and did not show major differences between ioxaglate and iopromide contrast agents from a hemodynamic point of view. Two contrast agents tend to improve contractilities and diastolic properties of left ventricle since both caused an increase in maximum dP/dt and a reduce in Tau, in total subjects. This effect may be caused by cardiac compensation, probably because of osmolality, volume loading by contrast agents and secondary activation of sympathetic system immediately after injection of contrast agents. Thus, it is concluded that two ioxaglate and iopromide contrast agents amy be used safely in left ventriculography in patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction, with paying attention to an increase in LVEDP.