Published in:
01-12-2017
Iopamidol as an oral contrast media for computed tomography: a taste comparison to iohexol, diatrizoate sodium, and barium sulfate
Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 12/2017
Login to get accessAbstract
Objectives
The objective of this study is to compare the palatability of iopamidol and iohexol.
Methods
This was a blinded and randomized trial in which fifty healthy subjects taste tested iopamidol (Isovue, Bracco Diagnostics), iohexol (Omnipaque, GE Healthcare), diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (Gastrografin, Bracco Diagnostics), and barium sulfate suspension 2.1% w/v, 2.0% w/w (READI-CAT2, E-Z-EM). Participants scored palatability on a continuous scale from 0 to 40 (0 = intolerable, 10 = unpleasant but tolerable, 20 = neutral, 30 = kind of like, 40 = strongly like).
Results
Mean scores (SD/SEM) for the contrast agents (n = 50) were iopamidol = 21.0 (8.4/1.2); iohexol = 21.8 (7.1/1.0); Gastrografin = 16.8 (9.6/1.4); and barium = 23.7 (9.1/1.3). One-way ANOVA equality of means test shows rejection of the hypothesis that the means are equal (F* = 6.550, p = .000). Post hoc testing demonstrates Gastrografin to be significantly less preferred to barium (p = .000) and iohexol (p = .012). No difference was found between iopamidol and iohexol (p = .959). One-way ANOVA equality of means test of just iopamidol, iohexol, and barium does not reject the hypothesis that means are equal (F* = 1.778 and p = .174).
Conclusion
There is no significant difference in palatability between iopamidol and iohexol, supporting the use of iopamidol as a viable alternative to iohexol as an oral contrast agent.