RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES.
Since the development of the first low-osmolality contrast agent in 1969, a new group of ionic and nonionic compounds have emerged. These new agents have dramatically improved diagnostic imaging by exhibiting significant improvements in safety and technical efficacy over that of high-osmolality agents. This study was designed to compare the safety, tolerance, and technical efficacy of iopromide, a new low-osmolality, nonionic contrast agent, with that of both ioversol and iopamidol for digital subtraction angiography (DSA).
One hundred fifty patients with conditions requiring intraarterial digital subtraction angiography were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg I/mL iopromide or either 160 nig I/mL ioversol or 128 mg I/mL iopamidol. Cerebral, aortovisceral, and peripheral arteriography was performed.
No significant difference was found in safety, tolerance, and technical efficacy between iopromide and ioversol. Iopamidol had significantly less technical efficacy than iopromide, but there were no significant differences in safety or tolerance between these two agents.
All three contrast media (CM) are useful for cerebral DSA. Although these agents were diagnostically adequate for use during aortovisceral and peripheral DSA, none was able to optimally opacify vessels during these studies in the concentrations administered.