Comparison of ionic and non‐ionic contrast agents in cardiac catheterization: The effects of ventriculography and coronary arteriography on hemodynamics, electrocardiography, and serum creatinine

Abstract

We compared two nonionic contrast agents (ioxaglate and iohexol) with an ionic agent (Renografin-76) on the effects of ventriculography and coronary arteriography on the hemodynamics, electrocardiography, and serum creatinine in one hundred consecutive patients. Patients were randomized to nonionic or ionic groups and were further evaluated regarding the effect of fluid loading prior to catheterization. The ionic agent more often produced subjective reactions (rash, nausea/vomiting). Following ventriculography, both ionic and non-ionic agents produced an increase in left ventricular end diastolic pressure and this effect was undetermined by fluid loading. Nonionic agents decreased aortic diastolic pressure following ventriculography and this effect was unaltered by fluid loading. In contrast, the ionic agent produced profound hemodynamic changes (drop in both systolic and diastolic pressures) following coronary arteriography and these effects were blunted by prior fluid loading. The ionic agent produced significantly greater heart rate slowing and prolongation of the QT interval than the nonionic agents, suggesting that the latter are potentially less arrhythmogenic. Comparing the two non-ionic agents, we found that both decreased aortic diastolic pressure and increased left ventricular end diastolic pressure following ventriculography. Iohexol produced greater heart rate slowing than did ioxaglate, though the increase was minor compared to the ionic agent. Neither nonionic agent appeared to significantly affect serum creatinine. In conclusion, the two nonionic agents appeared to offer significant advantages over the ionic agent in ventriculography and coronary arteriography.