A double-blind clinical comparison of the electrophysiologic adverse effects of Hexabrix and Renografin-76.
A clinical and an animal study were performed to examine adverse effects when ratio 3 and ratio 1.5 contrast media are injected directly into the heart. In a randomized double-blind clinical trial of 50 patients undergoing cardiac angiography, the safety and efficacy of Hexabrix (ratio 3) and Renografin-76 (ratio 1.5) were compared. Cardiac output increased more significantly in the Renografin-76 group, and there was a significant difference in AV 02 indicating less vasodilatation with Hexabrix. There was dramatically less prolongation in the QT interval for the Hexabrix group. Ventricular fibrillation threshold studies of dogs examined the adverse electrophysiologic effects on the heart. One-ml doses of Hexabrix and Renografin-76 were injected in the left coronary artery and compared. Renografin-76 significantly reduced threshold, whereas Hexabrix was much less toxic. Ratio 3 agents are less hazardous in terms of total adverse effects and are particularly indicated for certain risk groups.[1]References
- A double-blind clinical comparison of the electrophysiologic adverse effects of Hexabrix and Renografin-76. Wolf, G.L. Investigative radiology. (1984) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
