Abstract
A multicenter study was carried out to compare iotrolan 280, a non-ionic, dimeric water-soluble contrast agent, with iopamidol 300 a non-ionic, monomeric agent, to assess visualization, safety and clinical benefit in intravenous urography. Both iotrolan and iopamidol showed a high rate of effective visualization. Iotrolan was significantly better than iopamidol in visualizing the renal pelvis. Adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the two contrast agents, and no severe reactions developed. Both contrast agents were clinically valuable in over 95% of patients. There was no significant difference between the two patient groups in clinical benefit. Iotrolan has been demonstrated to be clinically comparable to iopamidol and is thus very suitable for use in intravenous urography.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Inoue S, Watanabe T, Yamamura H (1986) Visualization, safety and clinical value of iotrolan in lumbar myelography. J Clin Exp Med 139: 635–644
Dure-Smith P, Simenhoff M, Zimskind PD, Kordoff M (1971) The bolus effect in excretory urography. Radiology 101: 29–34
Tsubogo Y (1985) Excretory urography: new contrast media. Jpn J Diagn Imag 5 (suppl 1):79–83
Tokunaga A, Shigematsu K, Mitomo S, Uchida H, Matsuo N, Ishida O, et al. (1984) Clinical study of iopamidol in excretory urography: multicentered comparative study with diatrizoate. Radiol Med 3: 200–213
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Narimatsu, Y., Hiramatsu, K. A Japanese multicenter comparison of iotrolan 280 with iopamidol 300 in intravenous urography. Eur. Radiol. 5 (Suppl 2), S58–S62 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02343263
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02343263