DOUBLE-BLIND-STUDY OF THE SAFETY, TOLERANCE, AND DIAGNOSTIC EFFICACY OF IOPROMIDE AS COMPARED WITH IOPAMIDOL AND IOHEXOL IN PATIENTS REQUIRING AORTOGRAPHY AND VISCERAL ANGIOGRAPHY

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Nonionic contrast media have been shown to be more effective, better tolerated, and safer than standard high-osmolality contrast media when given intravascularly. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic efficacy, tolerance, and safety of a new nonionic contrast agent, iopromide (370 mg I/mL), in comparison with two available similar agents, iopamidol (370 mg I/mL) and iohexol (350 mg I/mL), in two randomized, double-blind clinical studies of patients undergoing abdominal aortography and visceral angiography. METHODS. The iopromide group included 80 patients, and the comparator group consisted of 36 iopamidol and 45 iohexol patients. The quality and diagnostic efficacy of all three contrast agents was rated equally as either good or excellent. RESULTS. On a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) for heat and pain, respectively, the mean scores were 1.08 and 0.43 for iopromide in comparison with 1.15 and 0.35 for the comparator media. Minor adverse clinical experiences were noted in 23% of the iopromide group versus 20% of the comparator group. Nausea and vomiting were more common in the comparator group (7% versus 3%), and headache was noted only in the iopromide group (4%). There were no clinically significant changes in laboratory values in any group. Three severe adverse experiences occurred, but all were deemed unrelated to the contrast agents. CONCLUSION. Based on the results of this study, iopromide appears to be efficacious, safe, well tolerated, and comparable with iohexol and iopamidol for use in abdominal aortography and visceral angiography,