[Double-blind randomized study comparing ioversol 300 versus iopromide 300 abdominal computed tomography (CT scanner)]. / Etude randomisée en double aveugle comparant ioversol 300 et iopromide 300 en tomodensitométrie abdominale (CT-scanner).

The authors compared ioversol 300 and iopromide 300 (ioversol 41 patients, iopromide 38 patients) in a randomized double blind study conducted on 79 patients undergoing abdominal computed tomography (CT) for a variety of indications. Each study was rated as diagnostic or non-diagnostic and the image quality was recorded. All side-effects were recorded. There was no significant difference in image quality and side-effects between both contrasts. In this study, both ioversol and iopromide provided excellent image quality and a low rate of side-effects. The authors conclude that ioversol is a safe and effective non ionic contrast agent for contrast enhanced body CT.

Comparison of sodium-meglumine ioxaglate and iopromide in coronary angiography.

A clinical study was carried out in 20 patients in coronary angiography to compare two low-osmolar contrast media, sodium-meglumine ioxaglate and iopromide. Ten patients presented a stage III coronary disease and the other ten had a stage IV coronary disease. In the latter group, 70% of the patients received sodium-meglumine ioxaglate and 30% were given iopromide. None of the patients given iopromide had a previous history of allergic-like reactions to contrast media as opposed to the sodium-meglumine ioxaglate group where two patients had a previous hypersensitivity reaction to contrast agents. In spite of these adverse conditions in the sodium-meglumine ioxaglate group, no significant difference was found between both preparations as to overall tolerability. The following side effects were observed: slight nausea and wheezing in a patient given sodium-meglumine ioxaglate; medium intense nausea, vomiting and headache in a patient administered iopromide; one case of angina pectoris occurring 8 minutes post-injection of iopromide. Similarly, no significant difference in overall cardiac tolerability could be found between the two contrast media, although sodium-meglumine ioxaglate would tend to be better tolerated in terms of heart rate and contractility. Radiographic efficacy was considered to be equivalent for both contrast agents though the test solutions had different iodine concentrations. In summary, the two low osmolar contrast media proved well tolerated and showed satisfactory diagnostic efficacy in this population at high cardiovascular risk.