To provide an overview of the development, chemistry, adverse-effect profile, and economic impact of radiographic contrast media (CM).
Data Sources
Information was collected by conducting a MEDLINE search for clinical trials, reviews, and other articles pertaining to the use of CM. References cited in published review articles and manufacturer's product information also were used.
Study Selection
Studies, review articles, and editorials were selected for review if they addressed the synthesis, clinical use, or economic impact of CM. Comparative studies conducted in humans were used to address the adverse-effect profile of CM.
Data Extraction
Data were extracted from reviews and editorials when the information from multiple sources was consistent and pertained to the purpose of this review. Comparative reviews addressing adverse reactions were reviewed by the author for appropriate methodology and reporting of results.
Data Synthesis
Radiographic CM are iodine-containing compounds that can be injected intravascularly or intrathecally for multiple diagnostic tests. CM are differentiated according to water solubility, viscosity, radiopacity, and osmolality. In the past decade, low-osmolality CM (LOCM) have been developed that may impart fewer adverse effects, such as flushing, nausea, vomiting, allergic reactions, cardiovascular effects, and nephrotoxicity. The use of LOCM has steadily increased since their introduction in 1985. The cost of LOCM is approximately 10- to 20-fold higher than previously available CM. This represents a growing financial burden to the healthcare system.
Conclusions
CM are an integral tool in diagnostic medicine. LOCM appear to be safer than previous agents; however, they are also more expensive. Balancing safety and financial concerns will be a recurring issue facing both the medical society and third-party payers when selecting appropriate CM to administer to patients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
OsborneED, SutherlandCG, SchollAJ, RowntreeLG.Roentgenography of urinary tract during excretion of sodium iodid.JAMA1923;80:368–73.
2.
McClennanBL.Ionic and nonionic iodinated contrast media: evolution and strategies for use.Am J Roentgeriol1990;155:225–33.
SwansonDP, ThrallJH, ShettyPC.Evaluation of intravascular low-osmolality contrast agents.Clin Pharm1986;5:877–91.
6.
Dorland's pocket medical dictionary. 23rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1982:506.
7.
BeckLH, KassirerJP.Serum electrolytes, serum osmolality, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine. In: SoxHC, ed. Common diagnostic tests: use and interpretation. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 1987:315.
8.
Package insert.Hypaque (diatrizoate meglumine 30%). New York: Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, 1988.
9.
KingBF, HartmanGW, WilliamsonB, LeRoyAJ, HatteryRR.Lowosmolality contrast media: a current perspective.Mayo Clin Proc1989; 64:976–85.
10.
DawsonP.Chemotoxicity of contrast media and clinical adverse effect: a review.Invest Radiol1985;20(suppl 1):S84–91.
11.
McClennanBL.Low-osmolality contrast media: premises and promises.Radiology1987;162:1–8.
12.
AlmenT.Contrast agent design: some aspects on the synthesis of water soluble contrast agents of low osmolality.J Theoret Biol1969; 24:216–26.
13.
DeBonoGG.Osmolality and tonicity: confusion in terminology applied to contrast media.Radiology1988;168:281–2.
VacekJL, GersemaL, WoodsM, BowerC, BeauchampGD.Frequencies of reactions to iohexol versus ioxaglate.Am J Cardiol1990; 66:1277–8.
16.
NossenJO, AakhusT, BergKJ, JorgensenNP, AndrewE.Experience with iodixanol, a new nonionic dimeric contrast medium: preliminary results from the human phase I study.Invest Radiol1990;25 (suppl 1):S113–4.
17.
PalmerFJ.The RACR survey of intravenous contrast media reactions final report.Australas Radiol1988;32:426–8.
18.
KatayamaH, YamaguchiK, KozukaT, TakashimaT, SeezP, MatsuuraK.Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media.Radiology1990;175:621–8.
19.
AssemESK, BrayK.The release of histamine from human basophils by radiological contrast agents.Br J Radiol1983;56:647–52.
20.
HerdCM, RobertsonAR, FrewinDB, TaylorWB.Adverse reactions during intravenous urography: are these due to histamine release?Br J Radiol1988;61:5–11.
21.
TrewhellaM, DawsonP, ForslingM, McCarthyP, O'DonnellC.Vasopressin release in response to intravenously injected contrast media.Br J Radiol1990;63:97–100.
22.
LaerumF.Acute damage to human endothelial cells by brief exposure to contrast media in vitro.Radiology1983;147:681–4.
23.
HowellMJ, DawsonP.Contrast agents and enzyme inhibition. II. Mechanism.Br J Radiol1985;58:845–8.
24.
Vik-MoH, RoslandGA, FollingM, DanielsenR.Hemodynamic and electrocardiographic consequences of high- and low-osmolality contrast agents for left ventricular angiography.Cath Cardiovasc Diagn1988;14:143–9.
25.
CaulfieldJB, ZirL, HarthomeJW.Blood calcium levels in the presence of arteriographic contrast material.Circulation1975;52:119–23.
26.
GreenbergerPA, PattersonR.Adverse reactions to radiocontrast media.Progr Cardiovasc Dis1988;31:239–48.
AnsellG.Adverse reactions to contrast agents: scope of problem.Invest Radiol1990;25:374–91.
29.
ShehadiWH, TonioloG.Adverse reactions to contrast media.Diag Radiol1980;13:299–302.
30.
GreenbergerPA, PattersonR, TapioCM.Prophylaxis against repeated radiocontrast media reactions in 857 cases: adverse experience with cimetidine and safety of beta-adrenergic antagonists.Arch Intern Med1985;145:2197–200.
31.
LasserEC, BerryCC, TalnerLB, SantinlLC, LangeEK, GerberFH, etal.Pretreatment with corticosteroids to alleviate reactions to intravenous contrast material.N Engl J Med1987;317:845–9.
32.
LangDM, AlpernMB, VisintainerPF, SmithST.Increased risk for anaphylactoid reaction from contrast media in patients on β-adrenergic blockers or with asthma.Ann Intern Med1991;115:270–6.
33.
WisneskiJA, GertzEW, DahlgrenM, MuslinA.Comparison of low osmolality ionic (ioxaglate) versus nonionic (iopamidol) contrast media in cardiac angiography.Am J Cardiol1989;63:489–95.
34.
AguirreFV, PedersenW, CastelloR, DeligonulU, GudipatiC, SerotaH, etal.The effects of high (sodium meglumine diatrizoate, renografin-76) and low osmolar (sodium meglumine ioxaglate, hexabrix) radiographic contrast media on diastolic function during left ventriculography in patients.Am Heart J1991;121:848–57.
35.
ParfreyPS, GriffithsSM, BarrettBJ, PaulMD, GengeM, WithersJ, etal.Contrast material-induced renal failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both.N Engl J Med1989;320:143–9.
36.
BerksethRO, KjellstrandCM.Radiologic contrast-induced nephropathy.Med Clin North Am1984;68:351–70.
37.
AntoH, ChouSY, PorushJG, ShapiroWB.Infusion intravenous pyelography and renal function: effects of hypertonic mannitol in patients with chronic renal insufficiency.Arch Intern Med1981;141:1652–6.
38.
VariRC, NatarajanLA, WhitescarverSA, JacksonBA, OttCE.Induction, prevention and mechanisms of contrast media-induced acute renal failure.Kidney Int1988;33:699–707.
39.
DavidsonCJ, HlatkyM, MorrisKG, PieperK, SkeltonTN, SchwabSJ, etal.Cardiovascular and renal toxicity of a nonionic radiographic contrast agent after cardiac catheterization.Ann Intern Med1989;110: 119–24.
40.
SchwabSJ, HlatkyMA, PieperKS, DavidsonCJ, MorrisKG, SkeltonTN, etal.Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of a nonionic and an ionic radiographic contrast agent.N Engl J Med1989;320:149–53.
41.
HirshfieldJW, KussmaulWG, DiBattistePM.Safety of cardiac angiography with conventional ionic contrast agents.Am J Cardiol1990; 66:355–61.
42.
SteinbergEP, MooreRD, PoweNR, GopalanR, DavidoffAJ, LittM, etal.Safety and cost effectiveness of high-osmolality as compared with low-osmolality contrast material in patients undergoing cardiac angiography.N Engl J Med1992;326:425–30.
43.
BarrettBJ, ParfreyPS, VavasourHM, O'Dea F, KentG, StoneE.Comparison of nonionic, low-osmolality contrast agents with ionic, high-osmolality agents during cardiac catheterization.N Engl J Med1992;326:431–6.
44.
SpinierSA, GoldfarbS.Nephrotoxicity of contrast media following cardiac angiography: pathogenesis, clinical course, and preventive measures, including the role of low-osmolality contrast media.Ann Pharmacother1992;26:56–64.
45.
JacobsonPD, RosenquistCJ.The introduction of low-osmolar contrast agents in radiology.JAMA1988;260:1586–92.
EikmanEA.Economics impact use of low-osmolar media.Diagn Imaging1989;11:121–2,127,129.
48.
Contrast media research project.ACR Bull1989;45:6.
49.
WolfGL, MishkinMM, RouxSG, HalpernEF, GottliebJ, ZimmermanJ, etal.Comparison of the rates of adverse drug reactions; ionic contrast agents, ionic agents combined with steroids, and nonionic agents.Invest Radiol1991;5:404–10.
50.
AppelLJ, SteinbergEP, PoweNR, AndersonGF, DwyerSA, FadenRR.Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media: what do patients think it is worth?Med Care1990;28:324–37.
HlatkyMA, MorrisKG, PieperKS, DavidsonCJ, SchwabSJ, BashoreTM.Randomized comparison of the cost and effectiveness of iopamidol and diatrizoate as contrast agents for cardiac angiography.J Am Coll Cardiol1990;16:871–7.
53.
DinitzMM.The contrast media dilemma; the quality vs. cost containment conundrum.ACR Bull1991;47:18–22.
54.
ApplebyCR.Update: imaging-showdown at X-ray corral: ionic vs non-ionic agents.Healthweek1990;40:35.
