Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: KEGG:D01817 (Iohexol)
 504 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

A prospective, randomised, double-blind study was performed to test the contrast quality, tolerance and safety of ioversol 300 mg/ml (Optiray 300, Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc., St-Louis, USA) versus iohexol 300 mg/ml (Omnipaque 300, Schering AG, Berlin). The study was conducted on 80 patients with peripheral vascular disease, who underwent central venous pelvis-leg angiography. The angiograms in the ioversol group were rated "very good" and "good" in 75.6% of the cases versus 51.3% in the iohexol group. Patient tolerance was nearly identical in both groups. On the 4 point rating scale for pain and heat sensations (1 = none; 4 = severe), the average heat scores were 1.28 for ioversol and 1.44 for iohexol. None of the patients complained of pain when receiving the injection. There were clinically significant changes of blood pressure in 3 patients out of each group and tachycardia in 5 patients in the ioversol group and 9 patients in the iohexol group. Seven out of 80 patients reported mild to moderate side-effects. These were related to the contrast medium in the case of 2 patients in both the ioversol and the iohexol group. All reactions resolved spontaneously or could be controlled by treatment.
 ...
PMID:A double-blind comparative study on the contrast quality, tolerance and safety of ioversol 300 versus iohexol 300 in central venous angiography (C.V. DSA). 129 99

To assess the influence of viscosity and iodine concentration, three matched and standardized left coronary arteriograms were obtained in 20 patients using iopamidol (Isovue-370), ioversol (Optiray-320), and iohexol (Omnipaque-350). The order of contrast media was randomized and the administration of contrast was double-blinded. Quantitative densitometric angiographic evaluation of the coronary angiograms was performed in addition to independent operator qualitative assessment. The injection volume of iopamidol (5.4 +/- 1.0 ml) was slightly but significantly less than that of ioversol and iohexol (5.6 +/- 1.0 ml, 5.7 +/- 1.0 ml, both p less than 0.05). The calculated iodine concentration was also lower for ioversol (1.7 +/- 0.32 gm) than for iopamidol (1.98 +/- 0.35 gm) and iohexhol (1.9 +/- 0.35 gm, both p less than 0.05). There were significantly lower contrast syringe injection pressures for ioversol (6.6 +/- 0.8 atm) than for iopamidol (7.5 +/- 0.9 atm) and iohexol (7.2 +/- 1.1 atm, both p less than 0.05). The quantitative densitometric analysis failed to demonstrate significant differences among the contrast media with respect to image density parameters for any individual agent. All coronary angiograms were deemed of diagnostic quality. The data in this study indicated that although differences in iodine concentration exist among the three agents, operator compensation with more rapid contrast delivery (higher volume) and lower viscosity (lower injection pressure) produced equivalent image opacification during coronary angiography. Given the same incidence of adverse hemodynamic and clinical effects, selection of a low viscosity media theoretically provides an advantage during procedures using small diameter catheters or interventional procedures requiring contrast visualization through reduced catheter lumina.
 ...
PMID:Effect of viscosity and iodine concentration of nonionic radiographic contrast media on coronary arteriography in patients. 172 20

A double-blind trial in 80 patients showed no significant difference in the efficacy, tolerance and safety for intravenous urography between the new contrast medium Ioversol (Optiray Mallinckrodt Inc.) and the well established medium Iohexol (Omnipaque, Nycomed [UK] Ltd). Minor transient rises in AST/ALT were noted in approximately 10% of each group which were regarded as clinically insignificant. Both media were well tolerated with no significant side-effects.
 ...
PMID:A double-blind clinical study comparing the safety, tolerance and efficacy of ioversol and iohexol in intravenous urography. 220 27

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical study was conducted to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ioversol 320 mg I/mL (Optiray, 320 Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc., St. Louis, MO) and iohexol 300 mg I/mL (Omnipaque 300, Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, New York, NY). The study was conducted in 50 patients undergoing peripheral arteriography and in ten patients undergoing visceral arteriography. In the peripheral group, 92% of the radiographs acquired using Optiray were rated excellent or good. Eighty-eight percent of those acquired with Omnipaque were so rated. In the visceral study all radiographs in both groups were rated excellent or good. Patient tolerance was also impressive. We used a four-point rating scale (1 - none; 4 = severe) to score both heat and pain sensations. For peripheral patients the average heat score was 2.4 in the Optiray group versus 2.3 in the Omnipaque group. The average pain scores were 1.1 in both groups. For visceral patients, the average heat scores were 2.4 in both groups, while the pain scores were 1.7 for the Optiray group versus 1.0 for the Omnipaque group. No clinically significant changes in vital signs were observed in any of the patients. One clinically significant change in the electrocardiogram (ECG) tracing was noted after an Optiray injection, but it was not felt to be drug induced. There were five instances in which laboratory values rose from their normal baseline values, but all changes were minor. There was only one adverse reaction in the entire study. A short episode of coughing occurred in one patient who received Omnipaque for a peripheral study; the coughing resolved spontaneously. Both Optiray and Omnipaque proved to be efficacious, well tolerated, and safe for intra-arterial use in peripheral and visceral vessels.
 ...
PMID:A double-blind comparative study of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ioversol and iohexol in peripheral and visceral arteriography. 268 98

After several years of clinical experience worldwide and numerous high-quality, randomized controlled trials in humans, the marked improvement in patient tolerance and safety of low osmolar contrast media (ionic and nonionic) has been demonstrated. Iohexol (Omnipaque), Iopamidol (Isovue), Ioxaglate (Hexabrix), and Ioversol (Optiray) are all now available in the United States.
 ...
PMID:Ionic versus nonionic contrast media: safety, tolerance, and rationale for use. 269 66

Coronary angiography with standard ionic contrast media is associated with marked alterations in cardiac hemodynamics because of the depressant effects of the contrast media on cardiac contractility. Nonionic contrast media have been reported to produce less hemodynamic alteration than standard ionic contrast media. However, there is no information on how one nonionic media compares to another. Thus we compared the hemodynamic effects of three nonionic contrast media, Iopamidol (IOP), Iohexol (IOH), and Ioversol (IOV) to each other as well as to the standard ionic contrast media Hypaque-76 (H76). In 20 closed-chest anesthetized dogs, we recorded the maximal change in left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP), mean aortic pressure, left ventricular diastolic pressure (LVDP), and left ventricular dp/dt during 10-cc left main coronary artery injections of H76, IOP, IOH, and IOV. The mean aortic pressure and LVSP decreased 36 +/- 17 mm Hg and 46 +/- 21 mm Hg with H76 but only 5 +/- 5 mm Hg and 6 +/- 5 mm Hg with IOP, 5 +/- 4 mm Hg and 6 +/- 6 mm Hg with IOH, and 5 +/- 4 mm Hg and 7 +/- 6 mm Hg with IOV (P less than 0.001). The LVDP increased 6 +/- 5.0 mm Hg with H76 but only 0.2 +/- 0.5 mm Hg with IOP, 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm Hg with IOH, and 0.5 +/- 1.0 mm Hg with IOV (P less than 0.001). The LV dp/dt decreased 545 +/- 261 mm Hg/sec with H76 but increased 886 +/- 477 mm Hg/sec with IOP, 910 +/- 96 mm Hg/sec with IOH, and 473 +/- 335 mm Hg/sec with IOV (P less than 0.001). Whereas each nonionic agent produced significantly less hemodynamic abnormalities than H76, there was no significant difference between any of the nonionic agents on any hemodynamic parameter. Thus, as compared to H76, these nonionic contrast media produced only trivial alterations in hemodynamics and LV dp/dt. These agents may be preferable in patients with LV dysfunction.
 ...
PMID:Hemodynamic effects of contrast media during coronary angiography: a comparison of three nonionic agents to Hypaque-76. 334 17

Six widely used X-ray contrast media (XRC) were tested against nine commonly isolated organisms to determine the practicality of using XRC to outline body spaces prior to obtaining specimens for culture and to assess the feasibility of using XRC in divided doses to reduce cost. Preparations of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus milleri in two approximate concentrations of 10(4) and 10(8) colony forming units/mL (cfu/mL) were inoculated into the following XRC: Conray 280, Hexabrix 320, lopamiro 370, Omnipaque 350, Ultravist 300 and Optiray 320 each in two concentrations. Sampling was performed in triplicate at 0, 2, 4 and 20 h with the 20 h counts made after exposure at both 22 degrees C and 4 degrees C. There were 16 significant interactions, predominantly with the Gram-negative organisms. Conray 280 produced the greatest number of effects. Most effects were bacteriostatic. Organisms were most susceptible at low concentration and after prolonged contact with XRC. No effect was seen with dilute XRC. All weekly sterility checks were negative. Non-ionic XRC have no significant effect on the growth of Gram-positive organisms and little effect on Gram-negative organisms if processing is performed promptly. Using standard aseptic technique, no contamination of XRC occurred, suggesting multi-dosing may be a safe and cost-effective method of XRC utilization.
 ...
PMID:The effects of X-ray contrast media on bacterial growth. 769 17

The aim of this study was to investigate if contrast agents interfere with the performance of an immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) in vitro for serum tumour-associated antigen. Each of five carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-positive sera, CA-130-positive sera and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA)-positive sera was mixed with six contrast agents: Ioversol 350, Iopamidol 370, Iomeprol 300, Iomeprol 400, Iohexol 300 and Gadopenteic acid in 50:50, 50:20, 50:5.0, 50:1.0, 50:0.5 and 50:0.1 microl proportions. Following IRMA, the interference of binding rates in each mixture was calculated, and the serum concentrations of CEA, CA-130 and TPA were estimated and compared with the originals. All contrast agents used were able to inhibit the binding rate with IRMA and the inhibition rates were in proportion to the amount of contrast agent. The detection of serum concentrations of CEA, CA-130 and TPA was significantly inhibited in the mixtures with more than 5.0 microl of contrast agent in all cases. Apart from Iomeprol 400, there was no significant inhibition of detection at the lowest concentrations of contrast agents. Iomeprol 400 was the strongest inhibitor and Gadopenteic acid the weakest inhibitor for each IRMA of the contrast agents employed. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that contrast agents may reduce the immunoreaction of antibody and antigen and lead to in vitro inhibition during immunoassays. It would be unwise to perform any plasma/serum immunoassay on a sample collected within 24 h of the administration of contrast agent considering the pharmacokinetics.
 ...
PMID:In vitro effect of contrast agents during immunoradiometric assay for tumour-associated antigens. 951 48