A randomized comparison of the nephrotoxicity of iopamidol and diatrizoate in high risk patients undergoing cardiac angiography

C. P. Taliercio, R. E. Vlietstra, D. M. Ilstrup, John C Jr. Burnett, K. K. Menke, S. L. Stensrud, David Holmes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

128 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Three hundred seven high risk patients with renal impairment (serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dl) were randomized in a double-blind manner to either iopamidol (a nonionic, low osmolar radiocontrast agent) or diatrizoate (a conventional radiocontrast agent) at cardiac angiography with subsequent follow-up study of renal function. Baseline clinical and angiographic variables were similar in the iopamidol (n = 155) and diatrizoate (n = 152) groups. Change in renal function after angiography was less pronounced with iopamidol compared with diatrizoate as measured by mean (± SD) increase in 24 h serum creatinine (0.11 ± 0.2 versus 0.22 ± 0.26 mg/dl, p < 0.001), mean maximal increase in serum creatinine (0.2 ± 0.44 versus 0.38 ± 0.73 mg/dl, p < 0.0001) and percent of patients with a maximal increase in serum creatinine > 0.5 mg/dl (8% versus 19%, p < 0.01). Such differences could not be documented in diabetic patients using insulin. There was no significant difference between agents in the number of patients developing clinically severe acute renal dysfunction. It is concluded that iopamidol is less nephrotoxic than diatrizoate in high risk patients at cardiac angiography. However, the difference in nephrotoxicity is small, of no major clinical significance in the majority of high risk patients and could not be documented in insulin-using diabetic patients. Iopamidol may be the preferred agent in certain patients with advanced renal impairment, but further study is warranted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)384-390
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume17
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1991
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Iopamidol
Diatrizoate
Angiography
Kidney
Contrast Media
Creatinine
Insulin
Serum

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

A randomized comparison of the nephrotoxicity of iopamidol and diatrizoate in high risk patients undergoing cardiac angiography. / Taliercio, C. P.; Vlietstra, R. E.; Ilstrup, D. M.; Burnett, John C Jr.; Menke, K. K.; Stensrud, S. L.; Holmes, David.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1991, p. 384-390.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6b327c92a8044b93bdc56deaf05accef,
title = "A randomized comparison of the nephrotoxicity of iopamidol and diatrizoate in high risk patients undergoing cardiac angiography",
abstract = "Three hundred seven high risk patients with renal impairment (serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dl) were randomized in a double-blind manner to either iopamidol (a nonionic, low osmolar radiocontrast agent) or diatrizoate (a conventional radiocontrast agent) at cardiac angiography with subsequent follow-up study of renal function. Baseline clinical and angiographic variables were similar in the iopamidol (n = 155) and diatrizoate (n = 152) groups. Change in renal function after angiography was less pronounced with iopamidol compared with diatrizoate as measured by mean (± SD) increase in 24 h serum creatinine (0.11 ± 0.2 versus 0.22 ± 0.26 mg/dl, p < 0.001), mean maximal increase in serum creatinine (0.2 ± 0.44 versus 0.38 ± 0.73 mg/dl, p < 0.0001) and percent of patients with a maximal increase in serum creatinine > 0.5 mg/dl (8{\%} versus 19{\%}, p < 0.01). Such differences could not be documented in diabetic patients using insulin. There was no significant difference between agents in the number of patients developing clinically severe acute renal dysfunction. It is concluded that iopamidol is less nephrotoxic than diatrizoate in high risk patients at cardiac angiography. However, the difference in nephrotoxicity is small, of no major clinical significance in the majority of high risk patients and could not be documented in insulin-using diabetic patients. Iopamidol may be the preferred agent in certain patients with advanced renal impairment, but further study is warranted.",
author = "Taliercio, {C. P.} and Vlietstra, {R. E.} and Ilstrup, {D. M.} and Burnett, {John C Jr.} and Menke, {K. K.} and Stensrud, {S. L.} and David Holmes",
year = "1991",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "384--390",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized comparison of the nephrotoxicity of iopamidol and diatrizoate in high risk patients undergoing cardiac angiography

AU - Taliercio, C. P.

AU - Vlietstra, R. E.

AU - Ilstrup, D. M.

AU - Burnett, John C Jr.

AU - Menke, K. K.

AU - Stensrud, S. L.

AU - Holmes, David

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - Three hundred seven high risk patients with renal impairment (serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dl) were randomized in a double-blind manner to either iopamidol (a nonionic, low osmolar radiocontrast agent) or diatrizoate (a conventional radiocontrast agent) at cardiac angiography with subsequent follow-up study of renal function. Baseline clinical and angiographic variables were similar in the iopamidol (n = 155) and diatrizoate (n = 152) groups. Change in renal function after angiography was less pronounced with iopamidol compared with diatrizoate as measured by mean (± SD) increase in 24 h serum creatinine (0.11 ± 0.2 versus 0.22 ± 0.26 mg/dl, p < 0.001), mean maximal increase in serum creatinine (0.2 ± 0.44 versus 0.38 ± 0.73 mg/dl, p < 0.0001) and percent of patients with a maximal increase in serum creatinine > 0.5 mg/dl (8% versus 19%, p < 0.01). Such differences could not be documented in diabetic patients using insulin. There was no significant difference between agents in the number of patients developing clinically severe acute renal dysfunction. It is concluded that iopamidol is less nephrotoxic than diatrizoate in high risk patients at cardiac angiography. However, the difference in nephrotoxicity is small, of no major clinical significance in the majority of high risk patients and could not be documented in insulin-using diabetic patients. Iopamidol may be the preferred agent in certain patients with advanced renal impairment, but further study is warranted.

AB - Three hundred seven high risk patients with renal impairment (serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dl) were randomized in a double-blind manner to either iopamidol (a nonionic, low osmolar radiocontrast agent) or diatrizoate (a conventional radiocontrast agent) at cardiac angiography with subsequent follow-up study of renal function. Baseline clinical and angiographic variables were similar in the iopamidol (n = 155) and diatrizoate (n = 152) groups. Change in renal function after angiography was less pronounced with iopamidol compared with diatrizoate as measured by mean (± SD) increase in 24 h serum creatinine (0.11 ± 0.2 versus 0.22 ± 0.26 mg/dl, p < 0.001), mean maximal increase in serum creatinine (0.2 ± 0.44 versus 0.38 ± 0.73 mg/dl, p < 0.0001) and percent of patients with a maximal increase in serum creatinine > 0.5 mg/dl (8% versus 19%, p < 0.01). Such differences could not be documented in diabetic patients using insulin. There was no significant difference between agents in the number of patients developing clinically severe acute renal dysfunction. It is concluded that iopamidol is less nephrotoxic than diatrizoate in high risk patients at cardiac angiography. However, the difference in nephrotoxicity is small, of no major clinical significance in the majority of high risk patients and could not be documented in insulin-using diabetic patients. Iopamidol may be the preferred agent in certain patients with advanced renal impairment, but further study is warranted.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025884525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025884525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1991894

AN - SCOPUS:0025884525

VL - 17

SP - 384

EP - 390

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 2

ER -