Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography: A double-blind clinical study

S. T. Cochran, J. W. Ballard, Richard W Katzberg, Z. L. Barbaric, R. Spataro, K. Iwamoto, J. J. Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Image opacification, patients' tolerance, and clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated in patients having excretory urography at three centers. In a double-blind, parallel study, iopamidol was compared with diatrizoate (50-ml dose), and in an open-label trial, the administration of a 100-ml dose of iopamidol was evaluated. In the double-blind study, a total of 84 patients received 50 ml of either iopamidol or diatrizoate. In the open-label study, another 42 patients received a 100-ml dose of iopamidol. Image opacification scores after the administration of the 50-ml doses showed better opacification with iopamidol than with diatrizoate in the renal calices (p < .05) and in the composite kidney (p < .05). Opacification scores were higher for 100-ml doses of iopamidol than for 50-ml doses in all anatomic regions as well as in the composite kidney (p = .0001). Patients' tolerance to iopamidol was significantly better than their tolerance to diatrizoate (p < .025). Investigators observed adverse drug reactions in a total of 10 patients. In the double-blind study, one of 43 patients had transient bradycardia after the administration of iopamidol. In the same study, four of 41 patients who received diatrizoate had five minor adverse drug reactions. With 100-ml doses of iopamidol, five of 42 patients had adverse reactions. No adverse side effects required therapy in either study. There were no significant changes in vital signs or laboratory values after drug administration. The results of this study show that iopamidol is a suitable agent for excretory urography at doses of 50 and 100 ml. Patients report fewer unpleasant side effects with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall image quality was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall evaluation of drug performance was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)523-527
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume151
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1988
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Iopamidol
Diatrizoate
Urography
Double-Blind Method
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Kidney
Clinical Studies
Drug Evaluation
Vital Signs
Bradycardia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Cochran, S. T., Ballard, J. W., Katzberg, R. W., Barbaric, Z. L., Spataro, R., Iwamoto, K., & Lee, J. J. (1988). Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography: A double-blind clinical study. American Journal of Roentgenology, 151(3), 523-527.

Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography : A double-blind clinical study. / Cochran, S. T.; Ballard, J. W.; Katzberg, Richard W; Barbaric, Z. L.; Spataro, R.; Iwamoto, K.; Lee, J. J.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 151, No. 3, 1988, p. 523-527.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cochran, ST, Ballard, JW, Katzberg, RW, Barbaric, ZL, Spataro, R, Iwamoto, K & Lee, JJ 1988, 'Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography: A double-blind clinical study', American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 523-527.
Cochran ST, Ballard JW, Katzberg RW, Barbaric ZL, Spataro R, Iwamoto K et al. Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography: A double-blind clinical study. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1988;151(3):523-527.
Cochran, S. T. ; Ballard, J. W. ; Katzberg, Richard W ; Barbaric, Z. L. ; Spataro, R. ; Iwamoto, K. ; Lee, J. J. / Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography : A double-blind clinical study. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 1988 ; Vol. 151, No. 3. pp. 523-527.
@article{b6e081f1d11840e1938ce145324525e8,
title = "Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography: A double-blind clinical study",
abstract = "Image opacification, patients' tolerance, and clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated in patients having excretory urography at three centers. In a double-blind, parallel study, iopamidol was compared with diatrizoate (50-ml dose), and in an open-label trial, the administration of a 100-ml dose of iopamidol was evaluated. In the double-blind study, a total of 84 patients received 50 ml of either iopamidol or diatrizoate. In the open-label study, another 42 patients received a 100-ml dose of iopamidol. Image opacification scores after the administration of the 50-ml doses showed better opacification with iopamidol than with diatrizoate in the renal calices (p < .05) and in the composite kidney (p < .05). Opacification scores were higher for 100-ml doses of iopamidol than for 50-ml doses in all anatomic regions as well as in the composite kidney (p = .0001). Patients' tolerance to iopamidol was significantly better than their tolerance to diatrizoate (p < .025). Investigators observed adverse drug reactions in a total of 10 patients. In the double-blind study, one of 43 patients had transient bradycardia after the administration of iopamidol. In the same study, four of 41 patients who received diatrizoate had five minor adverse drug reactions. With 100-ml doses of iopamidol, five of 42 patients had adverse reactions. No adverse side effects required therapy in either study. There were no significant changes in vital signs or laboratory values after drug administration. The results of this study show that iopamidol is a suitable agent for excretory urography at doses of 50 and 100 ml. Patients report fewer unpleasant side effects with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall image quality was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall evaluation of drug performance was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate.",
author = "Cochran, {S. T.} and Ballard, {J. W.} and Katzberg, {Richard W} and Barbaric, {Z. L.} and R. Spataro and K. Iwamoto and Lee, {J. J.}",
year = "1988",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "151",
pages = "523--527",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography

T2 - A double-blind clinical study

AU - Cochran, S. T.

AU - Ballard, J. W.

AU - Katzberg, Richard W

AU - Barbaric, Z. L.

AU - Spataro, R.

AU - Iwamoto, K.

AU - Lee, J. J.

PY - 1988

Y1 - 1988

N2 - Image opacification, patients' tolerance, and clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated in patients having excretory urography at three centers. In a double-blind, parallel study, iopamidol was compared with diatrizoate (50-ml dose), and in an open-label trial, the administration of a 100-ml dose of iopamidol was evaluated. In the double-blind study, a total of 84 patients received 50 ml of either iopamidol or diatrizoate. In the open-label study, another 42 patients received a 100-ml dose of iopamidol. Image opacification scores after the administration of the 50-ml doses showed better opacification with iopamidol than with diatrizoate in the renal calices (p < .05) and in the composite kidney (p < .05). Opacification scores were higher for 100-ml doses of iopamidol than for 50-ml doses in all anatomic regions as well as in the composite kidney (p = .0001). Patients' tolerance to iopamidol was significantly better than their tolerance to diatrizoate (p < .025). Investigators observed adverse drug reactions in a total of 10 patients. In the double-blind study, one of 43 patients had transient bradycardia after the administration of iopamidol. In the same study, four of 41 patients who received diatrizoate had five minor adverse drug reactions. With 100-ml doses of iopamidol, five of 42 patients had adverse reactions. No adverse side effects required therapy in either study. There were no significant changes in vital signs or laboratory values after drug administration. The results of this study show that iopamidol is a suitable agent for excretory urography at doses of 50 and 100 ml. Patients report fewer unpleasant side effects with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall image quality was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall evaluation of drug performance was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate.

AB - Image opacification, patients' tolerance, and clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated in patients having excretory urography at three centers. In a double-blind, parallel study, iopamidol was compared with diatrizoate (50-ml dose), and in an open-label trial, the administration of a 100-ml dose of iopamidol was evaluated. In the double-blind study, a total of 84 patients received 50 ml of either iopamidol or diatrizoate. In the open-label study, another 42 patients received a 100-ml dose of iopamidol. Image opacification scores after the administration of the 50-ml doses showed better opacification with iopamidol than with diatrizoate in the renal calices (p < .05) and in the composite kidney (p < .05). Opacification scores were higher for 100-ml doses of iopamidol than for 50-ml doses in all anatomic regions as well as in the composite kidney (p = .0001). Patients' tolerance to iopamidol was significantly better than their tolerance to diatrizoate (p < .025). Investigators observed adverse drug reactions in a total of 10 patients. In the double-blind study, one of 43 patients had transient bradycardia after the administration of iopamidol. In the same study, four of 41 patients who received diatrizoate had five minor adverse drug reactions. With 100-ml doses of iopamidol, five of 42 patients had adverse reactions. No adverse side effects required therapy in either study. There were no significant changes in vital signs or laboratory values after drug administration. The results of this study show that iopamidol is a suitable agent for excretory urography at doses of 50 and 100 ml. Patients report fewer unpleasant side effects with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall image quality was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate. Overall evaluation of drug performance was better with iopamidol than with diatrizoate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024075485&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024075485&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 3044040

AN - SCOPUS:0024075485

VL - 151

SP - 523

EP - 527

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 3

ER -