1991•PubMedRequires access

Iodinated radiographic contrast media: comparison of low-osmolar with conventional ionic agents [corrected].

Rubin Jd, Richard H. Cohan

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

A large number of reports on radiographic contrast media have appeared over the past year. The majority of these compared various properties of the new, nonionic low-osmolar agents with those of conventional ionic contrast media, including types and rates of adverse reactions, nephrotoxicity, anticoagulant effects, degree of subcutaneous injury resulting from extravasation, and gastrointestinal tolerance. In this review, recent developments in each of these areas are discussed. Although, in general, the newer agents are safer and better tolerated than ionic contrast media, their greatly increased cost prevents them from completely replacing these media. In this time of increasingly cost-conscious health care, even expert opinion concerning indications for nonionic low-osmolar contrast media use (also summarized here) is widely divided.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A large number of reports on radiographic contrast media have appeared over the past year. The majority of these compared various properties of the new, nonionic low-osmolar agents with those of conventional ionic contrast media, including types and rates of adverse reactions, nephrotoxicity, anticoagulant effects, degree of subcutaneous injury resulting from extravasation, and gastrointestinal tolerance. In this review, recent developments in each of these areas are discussed. Although, in general, the newer agents are safer and better tolerated than ionic contrast media, their greatly increased cost prevents them from completely replacing these media. In this time of increasingly cost-conscious health care, even expert opinion concerning indications for nonionic low-osmolar contrast media use (also summarized here) is widely divided.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A large number of reports on radiographic contrast media have appeared over the past year. The majority of these compared various properties of the new, nonionic low-osmolar agents with those of conventional ionic contrast media, including types and rates of adverse reactions, nephrotoxicity, anticoagulant effects, degree of subcutaneous injury resulting from extravasation, and gastrointestinal tolerance. In this review, recent developments in each of these areas are discussed. Although, in general, the newer agents are safer and better tolerated than ionic contrast media, their greatly increased cost prevents them from completely replacing these media. In this time of increasingly cost-conscious health care, even expert opinion concerning indications for nonionic low-osmolar contrast media use (also summarized here) is widely divided.

Key concepts: Medicine, Iodinated contrast media, Nephrotoxicity, Iodinated contrast, Contrast (vision), Adverse effect, Pharmacology, Nuclear medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Iodinated radiographic contrast media: comparison of low-osmolar with conventional ionic agents [corrected]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens