Comparison of ionic and low-osmolar contrast media during cardiac catheterization

Charles J. Davidson*, Thomas M. Bashore

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalShort survey

Abstract

The use of nonionic contrast agents during cardiac catheterization decreases the incidence of both major and minor cardiovascular complications when compared with ionic contrast. Hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects are less profound especially in patients who have severe coronary artery disease or left ventricular dysfunction. Sparse data exist comparing ionic and nonionic contrast in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. No clinical evidence suggests that nonionic contrast agents are less nephrotoxic than ionic contrast though patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (creatinine > 3.0) might benefit. The incidence of thrombotic events appears to be similar for both types of agents. Finally, the risk reduction of cardiovascular events must be weighed against markedly higher costs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)86-91
Number of pages6
JournalTrends in Cardiovascular Medicine
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1991

Fingerprint

Cardiac Catheterization
Contrast Media
Coronary Balloon Angioplasty
Incidence
Left Ventricular Dysfunction
Risk Reduction Behavior
Coronary Artery Disease
Creatinine
Hemodynamics
Kidney
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{c65232e5501743fa9dbfa45e3a3eeb40,
title = "Comparison of ionic and low-osmolar contrast media during cardiac catheterization",
abstract = "The use of nonionic contrast agents during cardiac catheterization decreases the incidence of both major and minor cardiovascular complications when compared with ionic contrast. Hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects are less profound especially in patients who have severe coronary artery disease or left ventricular dysfunction. Sparse data exist comparing ionic and nonionic contrast in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. No clinical evidence suggests that nonionic contrast agents are less nephrotoxic than ionic contrast though patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (creatinine > 3.0) might benefit. The incidence of thrombotic events appears to be similar for both types of agents. Finally, the risk reduction of cardiovascular events must be weighed against markedly higher costs.",
author = "Davidson, {Charles J.} and Bashore, {Thomas M.}",
year = "1991",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/1050-1738(91)90016-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "86--91",
journal = "Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine",
issn = "1050-1738",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Comparison of ionic and low-osmolar contrast media during cardiac catheterization. / Davidson, Charles J.; Bashore, Thomas M.

In: Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 2, 01.01.1991, p. 86-91.

Research output: Contribution to journalShort survey

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of ionic and low-osmolar contrast media during cardiac catheterization

AU - Davidson, Charles J.

AU - Bashore, Thomas M.

PY - 1991/1/1

Y1 - 1991/1/1

N2 - The use of nonionic contrast agents during cardiac catheterization decreases the incidence of both major and minor cardiovascular complications when compared with ionic contrast. Hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects are less profound especially in patients who have severe coronary artery disease or left ventricular dysfunction. Sparse data exist comparing ionic and nonionic contrast in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. No clinical evidence suggests that nonionic contrast agents are less nephrotoxic than ionic contrast though patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (creatinine > 3.0) might benefit. The incidence of thrombotic events appears to be similar for both types of agents. Finally, the risk reduction of cardiovascular events must be weighed against markedly higher costs.

AB - The use of nonionic contrast agents during cardiac catheterization decreases the incidence of both major and minor cardiovascular complications when compared with ionic contrast. Hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects are less profound especially in patients who have severe coronary artery disease or left ventricular dysfunction. Sparse data exist comparing ionic and nonionic contrast in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. No clinical evidence suggests that nonionic contrast agents are less nephrotoxic than ionic contrast though patients with significant baseline renal dysfunction (creatinine > 3.0) might benefit. The incidence of thrombotic events appears to be similar for both types of agents. Finally, the risk reduction of cardiovascular events must be weighed against markedly higher costs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025773946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025773946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/1050-1738(91)90016-8

DO - 10.1016/1050-1738(91)90016-8

M3 - Short survey

VL - 1

SP - 86

EP - 91

JO - Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine

JF - Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine

SN - 1050-1738

IS - 2

ER -