Takanori Miura, R. Kojima, Kazumasa Negita, Akio Katsumi, M. Ota, Masayo Yamasita, T. Kubota, M. Mizutani, F. Takatsu, Yoshio Suzuki
{"title":"冠状动脉造影检查引起造影剂的即时和延迟不良反应的发生率:Iopamidol和Iomeprol的比较","authors":"Takanori Miura, R. Kojima, Kazumasa Negita, Akio Katsumi, M. Ota, Masayo Yamasita, T. Kubota, M. Mizutani, F. Takatsu, Yoshio Suzuki","doi":"10.5649/JJPHCS1975.25.502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to compare iopamidol 370 mg I/mL with iomeprol 400 mg I/mL, regarding the incidence of immediate and delayed adverse reactions to the contrast media in patients receiving such drugs for coronary angiography. A total of 4298 patinets participated in the study consisting of 2203 and 2093 patients in the iopamidol and iomeprol groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions was determined by assessing the number of patients with immediate adverse reactions (up to 60 min after drug administration) and delayed adverse reactions (within 14 days after under goin angiography). The immediate adverse reactions were monitored during and after the completion of drug administration, and delayed adverse reactions were surveyed by questionnaire over the telephone. There was no significant difference in the incidence of immediate adverse reactions between both drug groups: 6.4% for iopamidol vs. 6.3% for iomeprol. On the other hand, the incidence of delayed adverse reactions in the iomeprol-treated group (7.3%) was significantly less than that in iopamidol-treated group (9.1%). The incidence of delayed adverse reactions of patients with renal dysfunction (Serum creatine 1.5 mg/dL) in the iomeprol-treated group (41.3%) was also lower than that in the iopamidol-treated group (55.2%). These results showed no obvious difference in the incidence of immediate adverse reactions between the two groups, while the incidence of delayed adverse reactions was lower in the iomeprol-treated group, thus suggesting that the usage of iomeprol with a low osmolality was more useful in protecting patients with renal dysfunction from adverse reactions induced by contrast media.","PeriodicalId":17399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Nippon Hospital Pharmacists Association","volume":"169 1","pages":"502-510"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Incidence of Immediate and Delayed Adverse Reactions to Contrast Media Caused by Coronary Angiography Examination : A Comparison between Iopamidol and Iomeprol\",\"authors\":\"Takanori Miura, R. Kojima, Kazumasa Negita, Akio Katsumi, M. Ota, Masayo Yamasita, T. Kubota, M. Mizutani, F. Takatsu, Yoshio Suzuki\",\"doi\":\"10.5649/JJPHCS1975.25.502\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this study was to compare iopamidol 370 mg I/mL with iomeprol 400 mg I/mL, regarding the incidence of immediate and delayed adverse reactions to the contrast media in patients receiving such drugs for coronary angiography. A total of 4298 patinets participated in the study consisting of 2203 and 2093 patients in the iopamidol and iomeprol groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions was determined by assessing the number of patients with immediate adverse reactions (up to 60 min after drug administration) and delayed adverse reactions (within 14 days after under goin angiography). The immediate adverse reactions were monitored during and after the completion of drug administration, and delayed adverse reactions were surveyed by questionnaire over the telephone. There was no significant difference in the incidence of immediate adverse reactions between both drug groups: 6.4% for iopamidol vs. 6.3% for iomeprol. On the other hand, the incidence of delayed adverse reactions in the iomeprol-treated group (7.3%) was significantly less than that in iopamidol-treated group (9.1%). The incidence of delayed adverse reactions of patients with renal dysfunction (Serum creatine 1.5 mg/dL) in the iomeprol-treated group (41.3%) was also lower than that in the iopamidol-treated group (55.2%). These results showed no obvious difference in the incidence of immediate adverse reactions between the two groups, while the incidence of delayed adverse reactions was lower in the iomeprol-treated group, thus suggesting that the usage of iomeprol with a low osmolality was more useful in protecting patients with renal dysfunction from adverse reactions induced by contrast media.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Nippon Hospital Pharmacists Association\",\"volume\":\"169 1\",\"pages\":\"502-510\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Nippon Hospital Pharmacists Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5649/JJPHCS1975.25.502\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Nippon Hospital Pharmacists Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5649/JJPHCS1975.25.502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Incidence of Immediate and Delayed Adverse Reactions to Contrast Media Caused by Coronary Angiography Examination : A Comparison between Iopamidol and Iomeprol
The aim of this study was to compare iopamidol 370 mg I/mL with iomeprol 400 mg I/mL, regarding the incidence of immediate and delayed adverse reactions to the contrast media in patients receiving such drugs for coronary angiography. A total of 4298 patinets participated in the study consisting of 2203 and 2093 patients in the iopamidol and iomeprol groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions was determined by assessing the number of patients with immediate adverse reactions (up to 60 min after drug administration) and delayed adverse reactions (within 14 days after under goin angiography). The immediate adverse reactions were monitored during and after the completion of drug administration, and delayed adverse reactions were surveyed by questionnaire over the telephone. There was no significant difference in the incidence of immediate adverse reactions between both drug groups: 6.4% for iopamidol vs. 6.3% for iomeprol. On the other hand, the incidence of delayed adverse reactions in the iomeprol-treated group (7.3%) was significantly less than that in iopamidol-treated group (9.1%). The incidence of delayed adverse reactions of patients with renal dysfunction (Serum creatine 1.5 mg/dL) in the iomeprol-treated group (41.3%) was also lower than that in the iopamidol-treated group (55.2%). These results showed no obvious difference in the incidence of immediate adverse reactions between the two groups, while the incidence of delayed adverse reactions was lower in the iomeprol-treated group, thus suggesting that the usage of iomeprol with a low osmolality was more useful in protecting patients with renal dysfunction from adverse reactions induced by contrast media.