Document Detail

Intravascular contrast media. Ionic versus nonionic: current status.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  2023999     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
The development of LOCM is one of the most important medical discoveries made at the end of this century. In developing nonionic compounds, Almén showed that it was possible to decrease the osmolality by a factor of 2 and also thereby reduce the chemotoxicity by as much as a factor of 20. Serious adverse side effects after the intravascular administration of contrast material are caused by a combination of osmotoxic and chemotoxic properties of an individual contrast media molecule as well as the ionic composition of the agent when in solution. Worldwide clinical experience with the use of LOCM, ionic and nonionic, consistently has shown the new material to be safer and more comfortable in clinical practice. Some form of limited use of LOCM is now part of virtually every radiologist's daily practice, and the focus is turning to the low-risk-no-risk group. There are gray areas between risk categories, with some evidence even suggesting that the 20- to 40-year-old age group may be at risk to the same or even a greater degree than other commonly accepted risk groups such as the elderly. The future promises even better and safer but, in all likelihood, expensive, contrast agents for intravascular use. The ultimate decision on choice of contrast or the fate of LOCM rests with public policy makers, organized medicine, and the individual physician and patient. Based on penetration of the marketplace (nearly 50%) in terms of LOCM sales in 1990, there is a growing awareness within our specialty as well as the public sector of the improvements offered by LOCM. It is unlikely that a major conversion back to the universal use of HOCM will ever occur. As long as cost remains the major focus of the debate over the choice, however, physicians need to be informed advocates, familiar with the science, yet sensitive to the economic implications of the decisions they make to best serve the interests of their patients.
B L McClennan; H O Stolberg
Related Documents :
2023999 - Intravascular contrast media. ionic versus nonionic: current status.
6885429 - Indoor radiation exposures from 222rn and its daughters: a view of the issue.
15585519 - Radon hazard and risk in sussex, england and the factors affecting radon levels in dwel...
12194709 - Schistosome transmission, water-resource development and altitude in northern ethiopia.
3222489 - Policy principles for utilizing science in decision-making on chronic health issues.
18000529 - Reach epilogue.
18345959 - Cera: third-generation erythropoiesis-stimulating agent.
10262089 - Privacy act of 1974; system of records--phs. waiver of advance notice period for a new ...
23052009 - On the issue of transmissibility of alzheimer disease: a critical review.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Review    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Radiologic clinics of North America     Volume:  29     ISSN:  0033-8389     ISO Abbreviation:  Radiol. Clin. North Am.     Publication Date:  1991 May 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  1991-06-06     Completed Date:  1991-06-06     Revised Date:  2006-11-15    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0123703     Medline TA:  Radiol Clin North Am     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  437-54     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Contrast Media / administration & dosage*,  adverse effects,  chemistry
Injections, Intra-Arterial
Injections, Intravenous
Osmolar Concentration
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Contrast Media

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Lack of a relationship between colony-forming efficiency and surviving fraction at 2 Gy.
Next Document:  Clinical use of urinary tract magnetic resonance imaging.