대한영상의학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology)

  • 제81권1호
  • /
  • Pages.166-175
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1738-2637(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-2928(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

경동맥 화학색전술을 위한 간동맥 혈관조영술에서 Ioversol 320과 비교한 Iopamidol 250의 영상 화질 비교 분석과 조영제 유해반응 평가

Comparative Analysis of Image Quality and Adverse Events between Iopamidol 250 and Ioversol 320 in Hepatic Angiography for Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization

  • 구민재 (계명대학교 의과대학 동산병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 이재혁 (계명대학교 의과대학 동산병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김영환 (대구가톨릭대학교 의과대학 대구가톨릭대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 이희정 (계명대학교 의과대학 동산병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 강웅래 (대구가톨릭대학교 의과대학 대구가톨릭대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 지승우 (대구가톨릭대학교 의과대학 대구가톨릭대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Min Jae Gu (Department of Radiology, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jae Hyuck Yi (Department of Radiology, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine) ;
  • Young Hwan Kim (Department of Radiology, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Catholic University of Daegu College of Medicine) ;
  • Hee Jung Lee (Department of Radiology, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ung Rae Kang (Department of Radiology, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Catholic University of Daegu College of Medicine) ;
  • Seung Woo Ji (Department of Radiology, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Catholic University of Daegu College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2019.05.31
  • 심사 : 2019.07.30
  • 발행 : 2020.01.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적 간세포암의 화학색전술에 사용되는 조영제인 Ioversol 320과 Iopamidol 250을 영상 화질과 유해반응에서 차이가 있는지 비교 분석하고자 하였다. 대상과 방법 경동맥 화학색전술을 시행 받은 113명의 간세포암 환자를 대상으로 후향적으로 분석하였고, Iopamidol 250은 44명, Ioversol 320은 69명에게 주입하였다. 영상 화질은 혈관인지도 및 일치도로 평가하였다. 혈관인지도는 두 명의 영상의학과 전문의가 간동맥 혈관조영술에서 간세분엽동맥, 췌십이지장동맥, 우위동맥, 우위대망동맥이 보이는 인지도와 명확도에 따라 3단계로 점수화하였다. 일치도는 혈관조영술과 전산화단층촬영에서 발견된 간세포암 수를 비교하였다. 시술 전후 임상증상을 조사하여 조영제 유해반응을 평가하였다. 결과 혈관인지도의 평균 점수는 Iopamidol 250은 2.92점, Ioversol 320은 2.94점이었다. 일치도는 Iopamidol 250은 31명(70.5%), Ioversol 320은 46명(66.7%)이 일치했으며, 혈관인지도와 일치도는 통계적 유의한 차이가 없었다(p > 0.05). Iopamidol 250은 1명, Ioversol 320은 6명의 환자가 오심을 호소하였으며, 유해반응 빈도의 유의한 차이는 없었다(p = 0.24). 결론 간세포암 화학색전술에서 Iopamidol 250은 Ioversol 320과 영상의 화질 및 유해반응에 유의한 차이가 없이 사용될 수 있을 것으로 생각된다.

Purpose This study aimed to compare the image quality and adverse events between Iopamidol 250 and Ioversol 320 usage during transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods Medical records and hepatic angiography from 113 patients who underwent TACE with Iopamidol 250 (44 patients) and Ioversol 320 (69 patients) were retrospectively reviewed. Vessel perception on hepatic angiography was graded into three categories by two radiologists for hepatic subsegmental arteries, the right gastroepiploic artery, right gastric artery, and pancreaticoduodenal artery. Imaging concordance was assessed by comparing the number of detected HCCs on hepatic angiography and CT. The adverse events before and after hepatic angiography were evaluated. Results The mean vessel perception scores were 2.92 and 2.94 for Iopamidol 250 and Ioversol 320, respectively. The imaging concordance was 31 (70.5%) and 46 (66.7%) patients for Iopamidol 250 and Ioversol 320, respectively. There were no statistical differences in vessel perception or imaging concordance (p > 0.05). One and six patients experienced nausea for Iopamidol 250 and Ioversol 320, respectively. There was no statistical difference in adverse events (p = 0.24). Conclusion Iopamidol 250 can be used in hepatic angiography for TACE without significant difference in image quality or occurrence of adverse events from Ioversol 320.

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by a grant from the Dongkook Pharm., Seoul, Korea.

참고문헌

  1. El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1118-1127 
  2. Korean Liver Cancer Study Group (KLCSG), National Cancer Center, Korea (NCC). 2014 Korean Liver Cancer Study Group-National Cancer Center Korea practice guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:465-522 
  3. Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2018;391:1301-1314 
  4. Varela M, Real MI, Burrel M, Forner A, Sala M, Brunet M, et al. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting beads: efficacy and doxorubicin pharmacokinetics. J Hepatol 2007;46:474-481 
  5. Sergio A, Cristofori C, Cardin R, Pivetta G, Ragazzi R, Baldan A, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): the role of angiogenesis and invasiveness. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:914-921 
  6. Grainger RG. Intravascular contrast media. Br J Radiol 1982;55:544 
  7. McClennan BL, Stolberg HO. Intravascular contrast media. Ionic versus nonionic: current status. Radiol Clin North Am 1991;29:437-454 
  8. Stolberg HO, McClennan BL. Ionic versus nonionic contrast use. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 1991;20:47-88 
  9. 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 
  10. Saade C, Deeb IA, Mohamad M, Al-Mohiy H, El-Merhi F. Contrast medium administration and image acquisition parameters in renal CT angiography: what radiologists need to know. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016;22:116-124 
  11. Faggioni L, Gabelloni M. Iodine concentration and optimization in computed tomography angiography: current issues. Invest Radiol 2016;51:816-822 
  12. Imai N, Ishigami M, Ishizu Y, Kuzuya T, Honda T, Hayashi K, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of techniques. World J Hepatol 2014;6:844-850 
  13. Behrendt FF, Pietsch H, Jost G, Palmowski M, Gunther RW, Mahnken AH. Identification of the iodine concentration that yields the highest intravascular enhancement in MDCT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:1151-1156 
  14. Kim EY, Yeh DW, Choe YH, Lee WJ, Lim HK. Image quality and attenuation values of multidetector CT coronary angiography using high iodine-concentration contrast material: a comparison of the use of iopromide 370 and iomeprol 400. Acta Radiol 2010;51:982-989 
  15. Awai K, Inoue M, Yagyu Y, Watanabe M, Sano T, Nin S, et al. Moderate versus high concentration of contrast material for aortic and hepatic enhancement and tumor-to-liver contrast at multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2004;233:682-688 
  16. Andreini D, Pontone G, Mushtaq S, Bartorelli AL, Conte E, Bertella E, et al. Coronary stent evaluation with coronary computed tomographic angiography: comparison between low-osmolar, high-iodine concentration iomeprol-400 and iso-osmolar, lower-iodine concentration iodixanol-320. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2014;8:44-51 
  17. Achenbach S, Paul JF, Laurent F, Becker HC, Rengo M, Caudron J, et al. Comparative assessment of image quality for coronary CT angiography with iobitridol and two contrast agents with higher iodine concentrations: iopromide and iomeprol. A multicentre randomized double-blind trial. Eur Radiol 2017;27:821-830 
  18. Waser M, Kaufmann U, Luescher T, Meier B. Low or high iodine content of contrast medium for cardiac angiography? J Interv Cardiol 1998;11:113-116 
  19. Zhang JJ, Hogstrom B, Malinak J, Ikei N. Effects of viscosity on power and hand injection of iso-osmolar iodinated contrast media through thin catheters. Acta Radiol 2016;57:557-564 
  20. Morcos SK, Thomsen HS. Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1267-1275 
  21. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology 2013;267:94-105 
  22. Bettmann MA. Frequently asked questions: iodinated contrast agents. Radiographics 2004;24 Suppl 1:S3-S10 
  23. Namasivayam S, Kalra MK, Torres WE, Small WC. Adverse reactions to intravenous iodinated contrast media: a primer for radiologists. Emerg Radiol 2006;12:210-215 
  24. Park SH, Suh SH, Kim J, Kim EY, Kim DJ, Lee SK, et al. Clinical application of iopamidol (Pamiray® 300) for cerebral angiography. J Korean Soc Radiol 2007;57:121-127 
  25. Kim MH, Choi S, Seon HJ, Kim YH, Kim JK, Park JG, et al. Clinical utility of iopamidol (Pamiray®370) for cardiac CT. J Korean Soc Radiol 2011;65:27-33 
  26. Kopp AF, Mortele KJ, Cho YD, Palkowitsch P, Bettmann MA, Claussen CD. Prevalence of acute reactions to iopromide: postmarketing surveillance study of 74,717 patients. Acta Radiol 2008;49:902-911 
  27. Palkowitsch P, Lengsfeld P, Stauch K, Heinsohn C, Kwon ST, Zhang SX, et al. Safety and diagnostic image quality of iopromide: results of a large non-interventional observational study of European and Asian patients (IMAGE). Acta Radiol 2012;53:179-186