Neurology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Correspondence:
Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Correspondence are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Velaj, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fram, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Velaj, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fram, E.
NEUROLOGY 1985;35:1290
© 1985 American Academy of Neurology

Comparative neurotoxicity of angiographic contrast media

Richard Velaj, MD, Burton Drayer, MD, Robert Albright, MD and Evan Fram, MD

From the Departments of Radiology (Drs. Velaj. Drayer, Albright, and Fram) and Neurology (Drs. Drayer and Albright), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.

The neurotoxic effects in cerebral angiography of three iodinated ionic contrast media, nonionic iopamidol, 25% mannitol, and saline controls were compared in 25 rabbits. Diatrizoate sodium meglumine was the most toxic agent, followed by diatrizoate meglumine, iothalamate meglumine, and mannitol in terms of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption and coupled perfusion decline. HIPDm distribution was more sensitive than trypan blue extravasation for monitoring brain dysfunction. Iopamidol and saline controls exhibited no visual BBB breakdown or alteration in regional uptake of 1–125 HIPDm, confirming the safety of nonionic iopamidol as compared with presently used ionic contrast media.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Drayer, Department of Radiology, Box 3808, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710.

Accepted for publication December 14, 1984.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANGIOLOGYHome page
J. Antonellis, K. Kostopoulos, A. Rambaouni, N. Margaris, A. Kranidis, A. Salahas, G. Ifantis, and G. Koroxenidis
Cortical Blindness Following Coronary Arteriography: A Rare But Self-Cured Complication: Two Case Reports
Angiology, August 1, 1996; 47(8): 803 - 806.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 ANGIOLOGYHome page
J. Kamata, K. Fukami, H. Yoshida, Y. Mizunuma, N. Moriai, T. Takino, S. Hosokawa, K. Hashimoto, K. Nakai, K. Kawazoe, et al.
Transient Cortical Blindness Following Bypass Graft Angiography: A Case Report
Angiology, October 1, 1995; 46(10): 937 - 946.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of ToxicologyHome page
K. E. Wilcock, A. B. Santamaria, V. H. Frankos, H. W. Fischer, E. A. Platz, and B. A. Jackson
Perspectives on Adverse Reaction Rates Associated with the Use of High Osmolar Ionic and Low Osmolar Nonionic Contrast Media
International Journal of Toxicology, November 1, 1990; 9(6): 563 - 607.
[PDF]

Home page
 VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURGHome page
G. Tiberio, S. M. Giulini, M. Floriani, S. Bonardelli, and N. Portolani
Surgical Techniques from Intraoperative Angiographic and Velocimetric Controls in 43 Consecutive Carotid Bifurcation Endarterectomies
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, March 1, 1988; 22(2): 93 - 101.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.