首页> 外文期刊>Heart, lung & circulation >Adverse reactions of low osmolar non-ionic and ionic contrast media when used together or separately during percutaneous coronary intervention.
【24h】

Adverse reactions of low osmolar non-ionic and ionic contrast media when used together or separately during percutaneous coronary intervention.

机译:当在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中一起使用或分别使用时,低渗透性非离子型和离子型造影剂的不良反应。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Due to perceived advantages in the use of non-ionic contrast agents for diagnostic angiography and ionic agents for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), patients often receive various combinations of both types of agents. AIM: To assess potential adverse effects of non-ionic and ionic contrast media when used together or separately during percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 532 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution. Patients were divided into two groups: those that underwent diagnostic angiography and "follow on" PCI; and those that underwent "planned" PCI. The groups were subdivided on the basis of the use of the ionic agent ioxaglate or the non-ionic agent iopromide during PCI. The frequency of allergic reactions and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were noted. RESULTS: With respect to the "follow on" group, allergic reactions occurred in 9 of 150 patients (6.0%) who received the combination of ioxaglate and iopromide versus 1 of 93 (1.1%) who only received iopromide (p=0.094). There was no difference with respect to MACE [6 (4.0%) ioxaglate and iopromide versus 4 (4.3%) iopromide alone, p=1.00]. In the "planned" group, 7 of 165 patients (4.2%) receiving ioxaglate had an allergic reaction as opposed 0.0% (0 of 124 patients) in the iopromide group (p=0.021). All contrast reactions were mild. The incidence of a MACE was similar in both groups [1 (0.6%) ioxaglate versus 2 (1.6%) iopromide, p=0.579]. The incidence of allergic reactions was similar if ioxaglate was used alone or in combination with iopromide (p=0.478). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst combining ionic and non-ionic contrast agents in the same procedure was not associated with any more adverse reactions than using an ionic contrast agent alone, the ionic contrast agent ioxaglate was associated with the majority of allergic reactions. With respect to choice of contrast agent, using the non-ionic agent iopromide alone for coronary intervention is associated with the lowest risk of an adverse event.
机译:背景:由于在将非离子型造影剂用于诊断性血管造影和将离子型药物用于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)方面具有公认的优势,因此患者通常会接受两种类型试剂的各种组合。目的:评估非离子和离子造影剂在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中一起使用或单独使用时的潜在不良影响。方法:我们回顾性评估了我院接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的532例患者的结果。患者分为两组:接受诊断性血管造影和“遵循” PCI的患者;以及那些经过“计划的” PCI的产品。根据在PCI期间使用离子制剂ioxaglate或非离子制剂iopromide将组细分。记录了过敏反应的频率和主要的不良心脏事件(MACE)。结果:就“随访”组而言,在接受ioxaglate和iopromide联合治疗的150例患者中有9例(6.0%)发生了过敏反应,而仅接受iopromide的93例患者中有1例(1.1%)发生了过敏反应(p = 0.094)。关于MACE,没有差异[6(4.0%)碘克洛特和碘普罗米特与4(4.3%)碘普罗米特,p = 1.00]。在“计划的”组中,接受ioxaglate治疗的165名患者中有7名(4.2%)有过敏反应,而碘普罗胺组则为0.0%(124名患者中有0名)(p = 0.021)。所有对比反应均为轻度。两组的MACE发生率相似[1(0.6%)碘克沙特与2(1.6%)碘普罗胺,p = 0.579]。如果单独或与碘普罗胺联用碘克沙酯,过敏反应的发生率相似(p = 0.478)。结论:与仅使用离子型造影剂相比,在同一步骤中结合使用离子型和非离子型造影剂不会产生更多的不良反应,而离子型造影剂碘克沙酸盐与大多数过敏反应有关。关于造影剂的选择,仅将非离子药物碘普罗胺用于冠脉介入治疗与不良事件的最低风险相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号