Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Iopamidol as an oral contrast media for computed tomography: a taste comparison to iohexol, diatrizoate sodium, and barium sulfate
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Iopamidol as an oral contrast media for computed tomography: a taste comparison to iohexol, diatrizoate sodium, and barium sulfate
Do you wish to request the book?
Iopamidol as an oral contrast media for computed tomography: a taste comparison to iohexol, diatrizoate sodium, and barium sulfate
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Iopamidol as an oral contrast media for computed tomography: a taste comparison to iohexol, diatrizoate sodium, and barium sulfate
2017
Overview
Objectives
The objective of this study is to compare the palatability of iopamidol and iohexol.
Methods
This was a blinded and randomized trial in which fifty healthy subjects taste tested iopamidol (Isovue, Bracco Diagnostics), iohexol (Omnipaque, GE Healthcare), diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (Gastrografin, Bracco Diagnostics), and barium sulfate suspension 2.1% w/v, 2.0% w/w (READI-CAT2, E-Z-EM). Participants scored palatability on a continuous scale from 0 to 40 (0 = intolerable, 10 = unpleasant but tolerable, 20 = neutral, 30 = kind of like, 40 = strongly like).
Results
Mean scores (SD/SEM) for the contrast agents (
n
= 50) were iopamidol = 21.0 (8.4/1.2); iohexol = 21.8 (7.1/1.0); Gastrografin = 16.8 (9.6/1.4); and barium = 23.7 (9.1/1.3). One-way ANOVA equality of means test shows rejection of the hypothesis that the means are equal (
F
* = 6.550,
p
= .000). Post hoc testing demonstrates Gastrografin to be significantly less preferred to barium (
p
= .000) and iohexol (
p
= .012). No difference was found between iopamidol and iohexol (
p
= .959). One-way ANOVA equality of means test of just iopamidol, iohexol, and barium does not reject the hypothesis that means are equal (
F
* = 1.778 and
p
= .174).
Conclusion
There is no significant difference in palatability between iopamidol and iohexol, supporting the use of iopamidol as a viable alternative to iohexol as an oral contrast agent.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
