Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10602973
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
9
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2000-1-12
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iopromide 240 mgI/ml in comparison with iohexol 240 mgI/ml in myelography. A total of 421 patients in seven centers and four countries received an average of 11.9 ml of either iopromide 240 (278 patients) or iohexol 240 (143 patients) for X-ray and/or CT myelography in a randomized (2:1), prospective, double-blind study. All patients were followed up 3-4 h after the procedure, and 327 patients remained hospitalized for 24 h. In 82 patients an EEG was recorded prior to as well as 3-4 h and 24 h after myelography. Physical examinations, including measurement of vital signs, were performed in all patients at these time points. The results were subject to statistical analysis with the primary variable being the incidence of adverse events. Both contrast media (CM) were equally effective in terms of opacification. The rating for opacity was "good" or "excellent" in 88 % for both CM. Four patients (iopromide group: n = 3; iohexol group: n = 1) had transient EEG changes but did not show clinical symptomatology. The overall rate of patients experiencing any adverse event (AE) was 16.9 % for iopromide 240 and 14.0 % for iohexol 240. Equivalence testing was inconclusive; however, the results indicated equivalence. The rate for AEs considered as study-drug related was slightly lower with iopromide 240 than with iohexol 240 (7.2 vs 7.7 %, respectively). Neither unknown nor unexpected AEs known for myelographic X-ray CM nor serious adverse events were observed. Iopromide 240 and iohexol 240 are equally safe and effective and can be recommended for myelography.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:chemical | |
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:issn |
0938-7994
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
9
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
1901-8
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2006-11-15
|
| pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Adolescent,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Adult,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Aged, 80 and over,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Contrast Media,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Double-Blind Method,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Electroencephalography,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Female,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Injections, Spinal,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Iohexol,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Middle Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Myelography,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Prospective Studies,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Reproducibility of Results,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Safety,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Spinal Cord,
pubmed-meshheading:10602973-Spinal Cord Diseases
|
| pubmed:year |
1999
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
A double-blind, prospective, randomized, multicenter group comparison study of iopromide 240 vs iohexol 240 in myelography.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
St. Gertrauden KH Berlin, Röntgenabteilung, Germany.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Clinical Trial,
Comparative Study,
Randomized Controlled Trial,
Multicenter Study
|