A COMPARISON OF IODIXANOL WITH IOPAMIDOL IN AORTOFEMORAL ANGIOGRAPHY

This double-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical investigation i n 140 consecutive patients undergoing aorto-femoral arteriography was carried out to compare iodixanol (Visipaque(R)) 270 mgI ml(-1) with io pamidol (Iopamiro(R)) 300 mgI ml(-1). The aims of the study were to co mpare adverse events and discomfort, clinical chemistry parameters in blood, haemodynamics and diagnostic information of the angiograms in t he two groups. The main parameter for statistical analysis was the vis ual analogue scale (VAS) score for overall discomfort experienced by t he 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 we re judged to be comparative. Statistically significant milder discomfo rt was felt with iodixanol than with iopamidol (p=0.0001); mean VAS va lues 16 mm and 51 mm, respectively. Pain was reported far less frequen tly after iodixanol than after iopamidol (7.4% versus 50.8%) whereas s ensation of warmth was less intense after iodixanol than after iopamid ol. Four patients in the iodixanol group and two in the iopamidol grou p reported transient, non-serious adverse events. The difference was n ot statistically significant (p=0.68). Systolic blood pressure was aff ected to a slightly greater degree after injection of iopamidol than a fter injection of iodixanol. Measurements of diastolic blood pressure, as well as clinical chemistry parameters in blood, revealed no change s of clinical importance, and all arteriograms performed were of diagn ostic value. The conclusion is that iodixanol 270 mgI ml(-1) is as eff icacious as iopamidol 300 mgI ml(-1), but produces less discomfort dur ing arteriography. As such, iodixanol is a good alternative to iopamid ol in aorto-femoral angiography.