Comparison of patient comfort between iodixanol and iopamidol in contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical studies have shown that iso-osmolar iodixanol (Visipaque®) causes less patient discomfort than low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) when administered via intra-arterial injection. No data are available comparing these agents for patient discomfort when administered intravenously (i.v.) using power injectors.

PURPOSE

To compare the frequency and intensity of patient discomfort between iodixanol and iopamidol (Isovue®) administered i.v. using a power injector in contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen and pelvis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of iodixanol 320 mg I/mL or iopamidol 370 mg I/mL on patient discomfort. The presence of discomfort (heat, pain, coldness) and intensity was verbally rated by patients on a 0-10 scale and converted into four categories (0, none; 1-3, mild; 4-7, moderate; 8-10, severe). Image quality was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 299 evaluable patients enrolled at nine centers, 151 received iodixanol and 148 received iopamidol. The average age was 58 years. Iodixanol patients experienced significantly less moderate/severe discomfort (35.1% vs. 67.3%; P < 0.0001) or heat (29.8% vs. 63.9%; P < 0.0001), and severe discomfort (2.6% vs. 16.3%; P = 0.0004) or heat (2.6% vs. 15%; P = 0.0008), but three times more no discomfort (21.2% vs. 7.5%; P = 0.0008) than iopamidol patients. Excellent image quality was in 95.4% of iodixanol vs. 89.9% of iopamidol patients (P = 0.0508). Overall, adverse event (AE) rate excluding patient discomfort was 19.9% in the iodixanol group and 14.9% in the iopamidol group (P = 0.2870), but contrast-related AEs were comparable: 11.3% vs. 10.1% (P = 0.8522). Delayed skin reactions occurred in 2.6% of patients in the iodixanol group and in no patient in the iopamidol group (P = 0.1226).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving iodixanol had significantly lower moderate-to-severe or severe discomfort than patients receiving iopamidol, with heat being the major contributor. Iodixanol use trended towards better image quality but the difference was not statistically significant. No significant differences in incidences of overall or contrast-related AEs or delayed skin reactions were seen between the two groups. These data support that CM osmolality may be a key determinant of patient discomfort.

Patient discomfort associated with the use of intra-arterial iodinated contrast media: a meta-analysis of comparative randomized controlled trials

Background

Discomfort characterized by pain and warmth are common adverse effects associated with the use of intra-arterial iodinated contrast media (CM). The objective of this review was to pool patient-reported outcomes available from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the discomfort rates associated with iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM; i.e., iodixanol) to those reported with various low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM).

Methods

A review of the literature published between 1990 and 2009 available through Medline, Medline Preprints, Embase, Biological Abstracts, BioBase, Cab Abstracts, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Life Sciences Collection, Inside Conferences, Energy Database, Engineering Index and Technology Collection was performed to compare rates of discomfort associated with the use of the IOCM (iodixanol) vs. various LOCM agents in head-to-head RCTs. All trials with a Jadad score ≥2 that reported patient discomfort data following intra-arterial administration of CM were reviewed, coded, and extracted.

Results

A total of 22 RCTs (n = 8087) were included. Overall discomfort (regardless of severity) was significantly different between patients receiving IOCM and various LOCMs (risk difference [RD] -0.049; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.076, -0.021; p = 0.001). IOCM was favored over all LOCMs combined with a summary RD value of -0.188 (95% CI: -0.265, -0.112; p < 0.001) for incidence of pain, regardless of severity. A greater reduction in the magnitude of pain was observed with IOCM (iodixanol), particularly with selective limb and carotid/intracerebral procedures. Similarly, the meta-analysis of warmth sensation, regardless of severity, favored IOCM over LOCMs with an RD of -0.043 (95% CI: -0.074, -0.011; p = 0.008). A positive linear relationship was observed between the discomfort effect size and age and a negative relationship with increasing proportion of women. The opposite trends were observed with warmth sensation.

Conclusions

IOCM was associated with less frequent and severe patient discomfort during intra-arterial administration. These data support differences in osmolality as a possible determinant of CM discomfort.

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial on the efficacy and cardiorenal safety of iodixanol vs. iopromide in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to compare the renal safety as well as cardiovascular (CV) effects and diagnostic image quality of iso-osmolar iodixanol vs. low-osmolar iopromide in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND

With the growing number of contrast-enhanced procedures being performed for coronary artery disease management, the safety and efficacy of iodinated contrast media (CM) have come under increased scrutiny.

METHODS

: Patients with CKD (CrCl < or =60 mL/min) were randomized to iodixanol (n = 106) or iopromide (n = 102). The primary endpoint was incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), defined as an increase in serum creatinine (SCr) > or =25% or 0.5 mg/dL within 72 hr of CM administration. Secondary endpoints were mean SCr increase, a composite of CV events in-hospital and 30 days postdischarge, and diagnostic image quality.

RESULTS

: CIN incidence was significantly lower with iodixanol than iopromide (5.7% vs. 16.7%; P = 0.011). Baseline SCr (OR 2.21, 95% CI: 1.25-3.47; P = 0.031), iopromide use (OR 2.56, 95% CI: 1.18-5.76; P = 0.024), and CM volume (OR 2.01, 95% CI: 1.01-3.21; P = 0.038) were identified as independent risk factors for CIN. Cardiovascular events were reduced with iodixanol (1.9% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.025); diagnostic image quality was similar for both CM (P = 0.353).

CONCLUSIONS

: Consistent with several previous trials comparing iso-osmolar iodixanol and low-osmolar comparator CM, iodixanol was associated with a lower incidence of CIN and fewer CV events than iopromide.

Nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolar iodixanol compared with nonionic low-osmolar contrast media: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To compare the nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolar iodixanol with that of nonionic low-osmolar contrast media (CM) (LOCM) in randomized clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted with a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Web of Science, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents Medizin, Cochrane Library (until August 2007), trial registers, conference proceedings, and reference lists to identify studies and with requests from all manufacturers of CM for unidentified studies. Randomized controlled trials assessing serum creatinine levels before and after intravascular application of iodixanol or LOCM were included. The primary outcome measures were the incidence of contrast medium-induced nephropathy (CIN) and change in serum creatinine levels.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials were included. Iodixanol did not significantly reduce the risk of CIN (relative risk [RR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61, 1.04; weighted mean difference in serum creatinine increase, 0.01 mg/dL [0.88 mumol/L]; 95% CI: -0.01, 0.03). There was no significant risk reduction after intravenous administration of the CM (RR, 1.08; 95% CI: 0.62, 1.89); subgroup with preexisting renal insufficiency (RR, 1.07; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.02) or after intraarterial administration (RR, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.01); subgroup with preexisting renal insufficiency (RR, 0.59; 95% CI: 0.33, 1.07). However, in patients with intraarterial administration and renal insufficiency, the risk of CIN was greater for iohexol than for iodixanol (RR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.68), whereas there was no difference between iodixanol and the other (noniohexol) LOCM (RR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.50, 1.78).

CONCLUSION

Iodixanol is not associated with a significantly reduced risk of CIN compared with the LOCM pooled together. However, in patients with intraarterial administration and renal insufficiency, iodixanol is associated with a reduced risk of CIN compared with iohexol, whereas no significant difference between iodixanol and other LOCM could be found.

A Meta-Analysis of the Renal Safety of Isosmolar Iodixanol Compared With Low-Osmolar Contrast Media

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the nephrotoxicity of isosmolar contrast medium (IOCM) iodixanol with low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) and to identify predictors of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN).

BACKGROUND

Contrast-induced nephropathy is a serious complication of diagnostic and interventional procedures.

METHODS

Pooled individual patient data (n = 2,727) from 16 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in which patients received either intra-arterial IOCM iodixanol (n = 1,382) or LOCM (n = 1,345) were included. Patients were stratified according to chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes mellitus (DM), or both. Outcome measures were the maximum increase in serum creatinine (Cr) over baseline and the incidence of postprocedural CIN.

RESULTS

The maximum Cr increase within 3 days after contrast medium (CM) administration was significantly smaller in the iodixanol group compared with the LOCM group (0.06 mg/dl vs. 0.10 mg/dl, p < 0.001), particularly in patients with CKD (0.07 mg/dl vs. 0.16 mg/dl, p = 0.004) and CKD + DM (0.10 mg/dl vs. 0.33 mg/dl, p = 0.003). Contrast-induced nephropathy, defined as an increase in Cr > or =0.50 mg/dl within 3 days after CM administration, occurred less frequently in the iodixanol group than in the LOCM group in all patients (1.4% vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001), in CKD patients (2.8% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.001), and in CKD + DM patients (3.5% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.003). Independent predictors of CIN included CKD, CKD + DM, and use of LOCM.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of pooled data from 2,727 patients indicates that use of the IOCM iodixanol is associated with smaller rises in Cr and lower rates of CIN than LOCM, especially in patients with CKD or CKD + DM.

Pain in femoral arteriography. A double-blind, randomized, clinical study comparing safety and efficacy of the iso-osmolar iodixanol 270 mgI/ml and the low-osmolar iomeprol 300 mgI/ml in 9 European centers

PURPOSE

To compare the injection-associated pain and heat sensation after administration of the iso-osmolar contrast medium (IOCM) iodixanol (Visipaque trade mark 270 mg I/ml) and the low osmolar contrast medium (LOCM) iomeprol (Iomeron trade mark 300 mg I/ml) in femoral arteriography.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

352 patients received iodixanol or iomeprol in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial. The first injection during femoral arteriography (DSA with automated stepping) was standardized. Injection-associated pain and heat sensation, efficacy and safety up to 72 h were evaluated.

RESULTS

The iodixanol group reported significant less injection-associated pain than the iomeprol group after the first injection (7.4% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.007), and after all injections (11% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.045). Iodixanol caused less heat sensation after the first injection (p = 0.007) and after all injections (p = 0.029). Heat sensations in the iodixanol group were less intense after all injections (p < 0.0001). No difference was found between the groups regarding the frequency of patients having adverse reactions (5.1% vs. 4%).

CONCLUSION

The IOCM iodixanol caused significantly less frequent injection-associated pain and heat sensation than the LOCM iomeprol during femoral arteriography.

Early and late reactions after the use of iopamidol 340, ioxaglate 320, and iodixanol 320 in cardiac catheterization

BACKGROUND

Although modern contrast agents have tolerability superior to older agents, significant differences remain between the agents currently in use.

METHODS

To investigate the incidence of early (<24 hours) and late (>24 hours to 7 days) reactions to 3 contrast agents commonly used in cardiac catheterization, we performed a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial in which 2001 patients received one of the following agents: iopamidol 340, a nonionic monomer; ioxaglate 320, an ionic dimer; and iodixanol 320, a nonionic dimer. Possible reactions to contrast were recorded during the hospital admission and after discharge by means of a questionnaire, telephone follow-up, or both.

RESULTS

Early reactions occurred in 22.2% of those receiving ioxaglate, 7.6% of those receiving iodixanol, and 8.8% of those receiving iopamidol (P <.0001). Late skin reactions occurred in 12.2% of those receiving iodixanol, 4.3% of those receiving ioxaglate, and 4.2% of those receiving iopamidol (P <.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The early side effect profile of certain ionic contrast agents suggests that these agents should no longer be used routinely in cardiac catheterization. The use of nonionic agents, however, is associated with late skin reactions, but there are notable differences between the monomeric and dimeric compounds. Although the skin reactions are generally benign, this is not always the case. Patients should be advised accordingly.

A comparison of a non-ionic dimer, iodixanol with a non-ionic monomer, iohexol in low dose intravenous urography

A prospective, double-blind study of 392 patients randomized into four groups was performed to establish whether diagnostic intravenous urograms could be obtained with a lower dose of iodine when using the dimeric, non-ionic contrast medium iodixanol compared with the monomeric, non-ionic iohexol. Patients received iodixanol or iohexol containing either 9 or 12 g of iodine (gI). The primary parameter was the diagnostic quality of the 6 min film, assessed in a blinded fashion, by consensus, by four radiologists. Iodixanol at both doses was diagnostic in over 90% of cases. Iohexol was only diagnostic in 74% (9 gI) and 81.8% (12 gI). Pairwise comparisons revealed that iodixanol 9 gI was significantly better than both iohexol 9 gI (p = 0.0005) and 12 gI (p = 0.014). No significant difference was present for different doses within the same contrast medium group. Iodixanol resulted in poorer bladder distension than iohexol. Iodixanol caused significantly less discomfort than iohexol.

Injection-associated pain in femoral arteriography: a European multicenter study comparing safety, tolerability, and efficacy of iodixanol and iopromide

PURPOSE

To evaluate injection-associated pain, safety, and efficacy with the isotonic contrast medium iodixanol (Visipaque 270 mg I/ml) compared with iopromide (Ultravist 300 mg I/ml) in femoral arteriography.

METHODS

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group clinical investigation was carried out in 54 hospitals in Europe. Of the patients evaluated, 1225 received iodixanol and 1227 iopromide in conventional and/or digital subtraction angiography.

RESULTS

The iodixanol group reported statistically significantly less injection-associated pain (0.9%) than the iopromide group (9.5%) (p << 0.001). Further, 4.1% in the iodixanol group experienced pain and/or severe heat sensation vs 19. 8% in the iopromide group (p << 0.001). In the iodixanol group, 1.8% of the patients experienced contrast-related adverse events vs 2.4% in the iopromide group (p = NS). Overall diagnostic information was optimal for 94.1% in the iodixanol group and 95.3% in the iopromide group (p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Iodixanol 270 mg I/ml causes significantly less injection-associated pain during femoral arteriography and is as safe and efficacious as iopromide 300 mg I/ml.

A comparison of iodixanol with iopamidol in aorto-femoral angiography

This double-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical investigation in 140 consecutive patients undergoing aorto-femoral arteriography was carried out to compare iodixanol (Visipaque) 270 mgI ml-1 with iopamidol (Iopamiro) 300 mgI ml-1. The aims of the study were to compare adverse events and discomfort, clinical chemistry parameters in blood, haemodynamics and diagnostic information of the angiograms in the two groups. The main parameter for statistical analysis was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for overall discomfort experienced by the patients during the examination. 134 patients, 69 and 65 receiving iodixanol and iopamidol, respectively, were examined according to the protocol and included in the evaluation. The two groups of patients were judged to be comparative. Statistically significant milder discomfort was felt with iodixanol than with iopamidol (p = 0.0001); mean VAS values 16 mm and 51 mm, respectively. Pain was reported far less frequently after iodixanol than after iopamidol (7.4% versus 50.8%) whereas sensation of warmth was less intense after iodixanol than after iopamidol. Four patients in the iodixanol group and two in the iopamidol group reported transient, non-serious adverse events. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). Systolic blood pressure was affected to a slightly greater degree after injection of iopamidol than after injection of iodixanol. Measurements of diastolic blood pressure, as well as clinical chemistry parameters in blood, revealed no changes of clinical importance, and all arteriograms performed were of diagnostic value. The conclusion is that iodixanol 270 mgI ml-1 is as efficacious as iopamidol 300 mgI ml-1, but produces less discomfort during arteriography. As such, iodixanol is a good alternative to iopamidol in aorto-femoral angiography.

Main results of the first comparative clinical studies on Visipaque

The results are reviewed from 18 European clinical vascular studies in 1950 patients where iodixanol (Visipaque) - a new isotonic, dimeric, nonionic contrast medium (CM) - is compared to other CM. Visipaque gave better patient comfort, i.e., less pain and heat sensation after vascular injections than the comparative CM. Adverse events reported after Visipaque were otherwise similar to nonionic CM but lower than after ioxaglate (Hexabrix) and other ionic CM. Human renal safety of Visipaque has been extensively studied. Only small changes in glomerular filtration rate and serum creatinine were measured with the monomeric nonionic CM as well as with Visipaque. The excretion of marker enzymes for renal tubular cell function was generally lowest for Visipaque. Thus Visipaque was highly tolerable in the kidneys. To study cardiac safety, electrophysiological and hemodynamic changes were recorded. Visipaque had generally no electrophysiological or hemodynamic effects, or less pronounced effects compared to the other CM. Radiograms revealed that Visipaque 320 mg I/ml yielded the same attenuation as 350 to 370 mg I/ml of the other CM and, similarly, 270 mg I/ml of Visipaque gave as good visualization as 300 mg I/ml of comparative CM.