Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2049958

Ionic versus nonionic contrast use.

H O Stolberg·B L McClennan
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

It has taken many years of research, development and intense scientific investigation to produce intravascular contrast media. Research on relations between chemical structure, animal toxicity, and water-solubility has produced a number of highly water-soluble, iodinated compounds for use in diagnostic radiology as intravascular contrast agents. The currently used intravascular agents may be classified into four groups according to their chemical structure: 1. Ionic monomers 2. Ionic monoacid dimers 3. Nonionic monomers 4. Nonionic dimers It is the objective of this publication to review the history and development of intravascular contrast media as well as their properties, general effects and clinical use. The four types of contrast media differ significantly in their chemical structure and physico-chemical properties, and these differences determine their osmotoxicity, chemotoxicity, and ion toxicity. We analyze the organ specific toxic effects of intravascular contrast media upon the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and the renal system. We also review the secondary effects, clinical manifestations, and the incidence of adverse events associated with different types of contrast. The choice of contrast media has become critical since the introduction of nonionic agents because their toxicological and pharmacological properties differ from those of the ionic agents. The application of basic concepts involved in the use of contrast media in excretory urography, computed tomography, angiography, and angiocardiography is discussed, and the advantages of the use of nonionic contrast agents are outlined. Economic and ethical issues are presented with emphasis upon strategies to reduce the risk associated with the injection of intravascular contrast and to curtail consumption according to rational principles of use.

Explore related subjects

Contrast MediaHumansIonsRadiographyRisk FactorsComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H O Stolberg, B L McClennan. Ionic versus nonionic contrast use.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-0188(91)90019-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Type, severity, frequency and management of adverse reactions associated with ultrasound contrast agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis are aimed at evaluating the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following administration of clinically approved ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) in adults and children, to assess risks in patients with cardiovascular disease and in pregnancy, and to evaluate the effectiveness of emergency management of severe ADRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PRISMA 2020 systematic review was conducted searching PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed quality. Incidence estimates were pooled when feasible, stratified by age group, contrast agent, and administration route. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies encompassing >&#x2009;1 million adults and >&#x2009;36,000 children were included, contributing multiple analytic cohorts to the quantitative synthesis. Severe acute ADRs were extremely rare (6 and 16 cases per 100,000 in adults and children, respectively) and absent following endocavitary administration in children. Non-severe acute ADRs occurred in 11 and 8 cases per 10,000 adults and children, respectively. Delayed reactions were very rare (<&#x2009;1 case per million in adults). No significant safety differences emerged between UCA products. The incidence of ADRs in patients with cardiovascular disease was analogous to the general population. No ADRs were reported in pregnant women. Standard emergency management was effective in almost all serious cases, though rare fatalities occurred. CONCLUSION: UCAs show an excellent safety profile in adults and children, with very rare severe ADRs and few non-severe, typically self-limiting reactions. Strict adherence to recommended emergency management protocols mitigates the remaining risks, supporting safe use across a broad range of clinical indications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023432668. KEY POINTS: Question What is the incidence, type, and severity of acute and delayed ADRs associated with clinically approved UCAs across different patient populations? Findings Severe acute adverse reactions are very rare, and non-severe reactions are rare and self-limiting, with no significant safety differences between adults, children, or patients with cardiovascular disease. Clinical relevant UCAs show an excellent safety profile across populations. These findings support their safe clinical use as reliable alternatives to iodine-based and gadolinium-based contrast agents in routine diagnostic imaging.

Contrast Media↗