심장 CT를 위한 Iopamidol 조영제($Pamiray^{(R)}370$)의 유용성

Clinical Utility of Iopamidol ($Pamiray^{(R)}370$) for Cardiac CT

  • 김목희 (전남대학교병원 영상의학과학교실) ;
  • 최송 (화순전남대학교병원 영상의학과학교실) ;
  • 선현주 (전남대학교병원 영상의학과학교실) ;
  • 김윤현 (전남대학교병원 영상의학과학교실) ;
  • 김재규 (전남대학교병원 영상의학과학교실) ;
  • 박진균 (전남대학교병원 영상의학과학교실) ;
  • 강형근 (전남대학교병원 영상의학과학교실)
  • Kim, Mok-Hee (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Song (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital) ;
  • Seon, Hyun-Ju (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Yun-Hyeon (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Kyu (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jin-Gyoon (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hospital) ;
  • Kang, Heoung-Keun (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hospital)
  • 발행 : 2011.07.01

초록

목적: 심장 CT에서 iopamidol 조영제인 $Pamiray^{(R)}370$의 유용성을 영상의 질과 안전성에 기인하여 평가하고자 하였다. 대상과 방법: 최근 4개월 동안 $Pamiray^{(R)}370$을 사용하여 심장 CT를 시행 받은 환자 100명을 시험군으로, 그리고 기존에 심장 CT에 사용된 $Ultravist^{(R)}370$을 사용하여 심장 CT를 시행 받은 100명의 환자를 대조군으로 하였다. 두 군 사이에 영상의 질과 관상동맥 각 분지의 조영증강 정도를 independent t-test를 이용하여 비교 평가하였다. 또한, 시험군에서 심장 CT 동안의 자작증상과 부작용 유무를 평가하였다. 결과: 시험군과 대조군에서 영상의 질 평가점수는 각각 4.26 ${\pm}$ 0.63점, 4.24 ${\pm}$ 0.62으로 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았으며(p > 0.05), 관상동맥 각 분지의 조영증강 정도 역시 각각 408 ${\pm}$ 38~447 ${\pm}$ 56과 412 ${\pm}$ 26 ~444 ${\pm}$ 37로 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다(p > 0.05). 시험군의 12%에서 조영제 주입 후 어지러움(7%), 구역(4%), 근무력감(1%) 등 경도의 부작용을 보였으나 자연 소실되었다. 자각 증상으로는 94%에서 순간적인 발열감을 보인 후 자연 소실되었으며, 그 외 심각한 부작용은 없었다. 결론: 심장 CT에서 iopamidol 조영제인 $Pamiray^{(R)}370$은 기존에 사용되던 iopromide 조영제($Ultravist^{(R)}370$)와 비교하여 영상의 질 및 관상동맥 조영증강 정도에 있어 유의한 차이가 없고, 또한 임상적으로 심각한 이상 징후를 발생시키지 않아 향후 심장 CT에 유의하게 사용될 수 있는 경정맥 조영제로 생각된다.

Purpose: We evaluated the utility of iopamidol-based nonionic contrast media ($Pamiray^{(R)}370$) for cardiac CT, with assessment of its image quality and safety. Materials and Methods: The study included 100 patients who underwent cardiac CT with $Pamiray^{(R)}370$ (experimental group), and 100 patientswho underwent cardiac CT with $Ultravist^{(R)}370$ (control group). A comparison of the image qualities and degree of vascular contrast enhancement was made between the two groups and evaluated statistically by an independent t-test. Changes in vital signs and adverse events during cardiac CT were evaluated in the experimental group. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the image quality (image quality score in experimental group vs. control group: 4.26 ${\pm}$ 0.63 vs. 4.24 ${\pm}$ 0.62), and mean attenuation values at the coronary arteries(p > 0.05) between two groups. For the experimental group, 12% experienced adverse events, including mild and transient reactions such as dizziness (7%), nausea (4%), and fatigue (1%). Further, 94% of patients complained of mild to moderate febrile sense just after contrast agent administration, which spontaneously disappeared within 3 minutes without any specific management. Conclusion: For cardiac CT, $Pamiray^{(R)}370$ was comparable to the widely-used contrast agent ($Ultravist^{(R)}370$) in terms of image quality and safety without any severe adverse reaction.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology 1990;175:621-628 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343107
  2. Korn WT, Bettmann MA. Low-osmolality versus high-osmolality contrast material. Curr Opin Radiol 1992;4:9-15
  3. Bettmann MA, Heeren T, Greenfield A, Goudey C. Adverse events with radiographic contrast agents: results of the SCVIR Contrast Agent Registry. Radiology 1997;203:611-620 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.203.3.9169677
  4. Grainger RG. Osmolality of intravascular radiological contrast media. Br J Radiol 1980;53:739-746 https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-53-632-739
  5. Grainger RG. Intravascular contrast media. Br J Radiol 1982;55:544
  6. McClennan BL, Stolberg HO. Intravascular contrast media. Ionic versus nonionic: current status. Radiol Clin North Am 1991;29:437-454
  7. Stolberg HO, McClennan BL. Ionic versus nonionic contrast use. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 1991;20:47-88 https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-0188(91)90018-W
  8. Wolf GL, Arenson RL, Cross AP. A prospective trial of ionic vs nonionic contrast agents in routine clinical practice: comparison of adverse effects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152: 939-944 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.152.5.939
  9. Amiel M, Moll T, Revel D, Corot C, Touboul T, Kirkorian G, et al. Comparison of the electrophysiologic effects of ioxaglate and iopamidol during selective coronary arteriography. Invest Radiol 1990;25 Suppl 1:S141-S143 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199009001-00064
  10. Bannon KR, Braun IF, Pinto RS, Manuell M, Sudilovsky A, Kricheff II. Comparison of radiographic quality and adverse reactions in myelography with iopamidol and metrizamide. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1983;4:312-313
  11. Conroy RM, Bjartveit K, Sheppick A, Long U, Masterson J. Iodixanol in intravenous urography: a comparison of iodixanol 270 mgI/ml, iodixanol 320 mgI/ml and iopamidol 300 mgI/ml (NIOPAM). Clin Radiol 1994;49:337-340 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)81801-X
  12. Heuschmid M, Kuttner A, Flohr T, Wildberger JE, Lell M, Kopp AF, et al. [Visualization of coronary arteries in CT as assessed by a new 16 slice technology and reduced gantry rotation time: first experiences]. Rofo 2002;174:721-724 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-32227
  13. Cademartiri F, van der Lugt A, Luccichenti G, Pavone P, Krestin GP. Parameters affecting bolus geometry in CTA: a review. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26:598-607 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200207000-00022
  14. Bae KT, Heiken JP, Brink JA. Aortic and hepatic peak enhancement at CT: effect of contrast medium injection rate--pharmacokinetic analysis and experimental porcine model. Radiology 1998;206:455-464 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.206.2.9457200
  15. Fleischmann D, Rubin GD, Bankier AA, Hittmair K. Improved uniformity of aortic enhancement with customized contrast medium injection protocols at CT angiography. Radiology 2000;214:363-371 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.214.2.r00fe18363
  16. Lee Y, Lee J, Lee HJ, Park J. The efficacy of Iopamidol ($Pamiray^{(R)}$370) in aortic and extremity CT angiography. J Korean Soc Radiol 2010;62:23-28 https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2010.62.1.23
  17. Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, van der Lugt A, McFadden EP, Stijnen T, de Feyter PJ, et al. Intravenous contrast material administration at helical 16-detector row CT coronary angiography: effect of iodine concentration on vascular attenuation. Radiology 2005;236:661-665 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2362040468
  18. Park SH, Suh SH, Kim J, Kim EY, Kim DJ, Lee SK, et al. Cinical application of Iopamidol ($Pamiray^{(R)}$300) for cerebral angiography. J Korean Radiol Soc 2007;57:121-127 https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.2007.57.2.121
  19. Dawson P. Chemotoxicity of contrast media and clinical adverse effects: a review. Invest Radiol 1985;20:S84-S91 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198501002-00020
  20. Manke C, Marcus C, Page A, Puey J, Batakis O, Fog A. Pain in femoral arteriography. A double-blind, randomized, clinical study comparing safety and efficacy of the iso-osmolar iodixanol 270 mgI/ml and the low-osmolar iomeprol 300 mgI/ml in 9 European centers. Acta Radiol 2003; 44:590-596
  21. Pugh ND, Sissons GR, Ruttley MS, Berg KJ, Nossen JO, Eide H. Iodixanol in femoral arteriography (phase III): a comparative double-blind parallel trial between iodixanol and iopromide. Clin Radiol 1993;47:96-99 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)81180-8
  22. Faykus MH Jr, Cope C, Athanasoulis C, Druy EM, Hedgcock M, Miller FJ, et al. Double-blind study of the safety, tolerance, and diagnostic efficacy of iopromide as compared with iopamidol and iohexol in patients requiring aortography and visceral angiography. Invest Radiol 1994;29 Suppl 1:S98-S101; discussion S106 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199405001-00019
  23. Mortele KJ, Oliva MR, Ondategui S, Ros PR, Silverman SG. Universal use of nonionic iodinated contrast medium for CT: evaluation of safety in a large urban teaching hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:31-34 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840031