Iomeprol and iopamidol in cardiac angiography: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison

A prospective randomised controlled trial to determine the early and late reactions after the use of iopamidol 340 (Niopam™) and iomeprol 350 (Iomeron®) in cardiac catheterisation

A new generation of intravascular contrast agents, the non-ionic monomers have safety profiles that are superior to those of older ionic compounds. There are, however, significant differences between these agents.

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of early (<24h) and late (>24h to 7 days) reactions to two non-ionic contrast agents currently used during cardiac catheterisation: iopamidol 340 (Niopam Bracco UK Ltd.) and iomeprol 350 (Iomeron Bracco UK Ltd.).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, double blinded trial. One thousand nine hundred and eighty-five patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation received one of the following contrast agents on a weekly basis: iopamidol 340 (Niopam) and iomeprol 350 (Iomeron). Reactions that were possibly related to the contrast agents were recorded on predefined data collection forms during the first 24h of the procedure (early reaction) and after 24h to 7 days (late reaction) by means of a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were matched in both the groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of heat sensation experienced between the two groups (p=0.1). Early non-heat reactions occurred in 2.7% of patients receiving iopamidol 340 (Niopam) and 4% of those receiving iomeprol 350 (Iomeron) (p=0.1). Significant electrocardiographic changes were recorded in 1.7% of patients who received iopamidol 340 (Niopam), and 1% of those who received iomeprol 350 (Iomeron) (p=0.2). Bradycardia occurred more frequently in the iopamidol 350 group (0.8%) compared to the iomeprol 350 group (0.1%) p=0.02. Late reactions occurred in 16.2% of those receiving iopamidol 340 (Niopam) and 21.7% of those receiving iomeprol 350 (Iomeron) (p=0.02). A total of 23 (3.7%) patients in the iopamidol group and 39 (6.2%) patients in the iomeprol group reported nausea, p=0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of early adverse reactions was similar with the two non-ionic contrast agents. Although bradycardia was slightly more frequent using iopamidol 340, nausea was reported more commonly 24h after the procedure in patients receiving Iomeron 350 (Iomeron). We conclude that there were only minor clinical differences between these agents; both are safe and well tolerated.

Transient partial amnesia complicating cardiac and peripheral arteriography with nonionic contrast medium

The aim of this study was to present a case of disruption of the blood-brain barrier during the coronary and lower extremity angiographies with radiological and clinical findings. This condition was secondary to intraarterial use of a nonionic, monomeric contrast medium. A total of 450 cc contrast media was used. Computed tomography examination showed contrast enhancement of the right occipital and frontoparietal cortical regions, which returned to normal one day after. The patient also fully recovered from the neurological symptoms within 24 h. We discussed the possible mechanism for blood-brain barrier disruption in this case.

Iomeprol: current and future profile of a radiocontrast agent

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To review the safety and efficacy profiles of iomeprol by examining the most indicative comparative clinical studies of iomeprol with widely used low-osmolar ionic or nonionic contrast agents, and to illustrate the recent development in iomeprol liposomal formulations for liver imaging and intravascular enhancement.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, comparative studies were performed of iomeprol versus iopamidol, iopromide, ioxaglate, iopentol, iodixanol, ioversol, and iohexol. In all studies, safety controls included pre- and postadministration physical examinations, monitoring of vital signs, electrocardiography, clinical laboratory investigations, and 24- or 72-hour postadministration monitoring of patients for adverse events. Technically adequate images were rated for diagnostic efficacy by masked assessors.

RESULTS

Iomeprol showed similar safety and diagnostic efficacy compared with the nonionic monomers iopamidol, iohexol, and ioversol, and no statistically significant differences were observed. No differences in diagnostic efficacy between iomeprol and iopromide were observed, but in one study on 1,200 patients, the incidence of adverse events and adverse reactions was significantly higher with iopromide than with iomeprol. Iomeprol caused significantly less heat/pain than iopentol in one study; it showed similar safety and tolerability to the nonionic dimer iodixanol, the two agents causing no or modest, superimposable pain and heat sensation at injection and showing similar renal tolerability after intra-arterial injection. A comparison of iomeprol versus ionic dimer ioxaglate in 2,000 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions showed that the incidence of thrombus-related events was similar with the two agents, but ioxaglate caused a significantly higher incidence of allergy-like reactions. First results with iomeprol-containing liposomal formulations show that these agents may facilitate the CT assessment of intrahepatic malignancies and CT angiography procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results of numerous randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical studies in a variety of indications show that the diagnostic efficacy of iomeprol solutions does not differ significantly from that of the low-osmolar contrast media available on the marketplace when similar iodine strengths are used, although iomeprol may have better tolerability and safety than the ionic dimer and some of the nonionic monomers in selective applications. First results obtained with iomeprol-containing liposomal formulations are promising and may foster additional clinical testing.

Iomeprol: a review of its use as a contrast medium

Iomeprol is a nonionic, monomeric iodinated contrast medium. Unlike the older ionic agents, iomeprol has low chemotoxicity, osmolality and viscosity and high water solubility. Compared with other nonionic contrast media, the osmolality and viscosity are lower and the water solubility is reported to be higher with iomeprol. Most radiographs (about 67 to 100%) obtained with iomeprol (containing 150 to 400 mg/ml of iodine) were of good or excellent quality in noncomparative and comparative trials recruiting 40 to 6127 patients undergoing various radiographic procedures. As expected, the diagnostic efficacy of iomeprol did not differ significantly from that of other nonionic agents (iopamidol, iopromide, iohexol and iotrolan). Iomeprol (containing 150 to 400 mg/ml of iodine) was well tolerated in clinical trials. Most adverse events were transient and of mild to moderate intensity and were similar to those observed with other contrast media. The overall incidence of adverse events ranged from 3 to 49.7% and mainly included localised pain (< or =6%) and heat sensations (8 to 45%), taste disturbances (3 to 27%) and various pseudoallergic reactions (< or =20% for each type of event). The incidence of heat or pain and taste disturbances with iomeprol was similar to that observed with iopromide and iopamidol. Pain (but not heat sensations) was reported significantly less frequently and taste disturbances reported significantly more frequently with iomeprol than with iohexol in a comparative trial. Pseudoallergic reactions (such as nausea, vomiting, skin reactions, dizziness, headache) were significantly less common with iomeprol than with ioxaglate and occurred at a similar frequency to that with iopromide and iopamidol. Cardiovascular events were rarely observed with iomeprol. Currently available iomeprol solutions contain a range of iodine concentrations (150 to 400 mg/ml) and are approved for a wide variety of diagnostic procedures. Iomeprol solutions are chemically stable which negates the need for chelating agents. Formulations of this agent are therefore the first not to contain edetic acid (EDTA).

CONCLUSIONS

Iomeprol shows equivalent diagnostic efficacy, and a similar adverse event profile, to that of other nonionic contrast media. The availability of a range of iodine concentrations enables iomeprol to be used in a variety of diagnostic procedures. Iomeprol, like others in its class, is suitable for use in diagnostic imaging.

Comparison of Iotrolan 320 and Iohexol 350 in cardiac angiography: a randomised double-blind clinical study

OBJECTIVE

A double-blind randomised study was conducted in two British centres, to evaluate the safety, tolerance and efficacy of the new dimeric non-ionic contrast medium Iotrolan 320 in comparison with the monomeric non-ionic compound Iohexol 350 in coronary angiography.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

120 patients were randomised to receive either Iotrolan at a concentration of 320 mgI/ml or Iohexol at a concentration of 350 mgI/ml, during selective coronary angiography and left ventriculography. The variables measured were: maximum increase of the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure up to 6 min after ventriculography, haemodynamic and electrocardiographic variables, arrhythmogenicity, clinical laboratory parameters, tolerance, adverse events and efficacy.

RESULTS

Iotrolan resulted in a smaller change of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure compared to Iohexol, but the difference was not statistically significant. Transient changes in left ventricular systolic pressure, intra-arterial systolic pressure, intra-arterial diastolic pressure, and in electrocardiographic parameters, occurred after the injections, but they were not clinically significant. Changes in the clinical laboratory markers from baseline values were comparable between the two groups and confirmed good renal and hepatic tolerance. During the left ventriculogram, Iotrolan resulted in less symptoms compared to Iohexol (P = 0.002). Adverse events, which were mild or moderate in most cases, were observed with no statistical difference between the two agents. The contrast quality of both agents was good with no statistical difference.

CONCLUSION

This study did not show a significant difference between Iotrolan 320 and Iohexol 350 with regard to cardiovascular safety or patient tolerance, except for a minor difference in the intensity of heat/warmth sensation.

Clinical utility and safety profile of iomeprol

Iomeprol is a new triiodinated, nonionic radiographic contrast agent prepared for injection at a number of concentrations (150, 200, 250, 300, 350 and 400 mgI/ml), each of which has osmolality and viscosity properties that are more favourable than other current nonionic monomers at the same iodine concentrations. Pharmaco-toxicological studies in animals have demonstrated that the molecular toxicity of iomeprol is very low. Intensive monitoring of vital, electro-physiological, and biochemical parameters in clinical studies have shown that iomeprol does not have clinically significant effects on the more important body systems and functions. Out of 7799 patients to whom iomeprol was administered, adverse events were observed in only 437 (5.6%). Of these events, the majority were rated as mild. In double-blind controlled clinical studies the contrast efficacy of iomeprol was shown to be as good as that of reference contrast media. The good efficacy was confirmed in a very large number of uncontrolled studies.