Effects of non-ionic iodinated contrast media on patient heart rate and pressures during intra-cardiac or intra-arterial injection.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects on heart rate (HR), on left ventricular (LV) or arterial pressures, and the general safety of a non-ionic low-osmolar contrast medium (CM) and a non-ionic iso-osmolar CM in patients undergoing cardiac angiography (CA) or peripheral intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (IA-DSA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two double-blind, randomized studies were conducted in 216 patients who underwent CA (n=120) or peripheral IA-DSA (n=96). Patients referred for CA received a low-osmolar monomeric CM (iomeprol-350, n=60) or an iso-osmolar dimeric CM (iodixanol-320; n=60). HR and LV peak systolic and end-diastolic pressures were determined before and after the first injection during left and right coronary arteriography and left ventriculography. Monitoring for all types of adverse event (AE) was performed for 24 h following the procedure. t-tests were performed to compare CM for effects on HR. Patients referred for IA-DSA received iomeprol-300 (n=49) or iodixanol-320 (n=47). HR and arterial blood pressure (BP) were evaluated before and after the first 4 injections. Monitoring for AE was performed for 4 h following the procedure. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare mean HR changes across the first 4 injections, whereas changes after the first injection were compared using t-tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between iomeprol and iodixanol in terms of mean changes in HR during left coronary arteriography (p=0.8), right coronary arteriography (p=0.9), and left ventriculography (p=0.8). In patients undergoing IA-DSA, no differences between CM were noted for effects on mean HR after the first injection (p=0.6) or across the first 4 injections (p=0.2). No significant differences (p>0.05) were noted in terms of effects on arterial BP in either study or on LV pressures in patients undergoing CA. Non-serious AE considered possibly CM-related (primarily headache and events affecting the cardiovascular and digestive systems) were reported more frequently by patients undergoing CA and more frequently after iodixanol (14/60 [23.3%] and 2/47 [4.3%]; CA and IA-DSA, respectively) than iomeprol (10/60 [16.7%] and 1/49 [2%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Iomeprol and iodixanol are safe and have equally negligible effects on HR and LV pressures or arterial BP during and after selective intra-cardiac injection and peripheral IA-DSA. CLINICAL APPLICATION: Iomeprol and iodixanol are safe and equally well tolerated with regard to cardiac rhythm and clinical preference should be based on diagnostic image quality alone.

Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

BACKGROUND: The reporting of outcomes within published randomized trials has previously been shown to be incomplete, biased and inconsistent with study protocols. We sought to determine whether outcome reporting bias would be present in a cohort of government-funded trials subjected to rigorous peer review. METHODS: We compared protocols for randomized trials approved for funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medical Research Council of Canada) from 1990 to 1998 with subsequent reports of the trials identified in journal publications. Characteristics of reported and unreported outcomes were recorded from the protocols and publications. Incompletely reported outcomes were defined as those with insufficient data provided in publications for inclusion in meta-analyses. An overall odds ratio measuring the association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance was calculated stratified by trial. Finally, primary outcomes specified in trial protocols were compared with those reported in publications. RESULTS: We identified 48 trials with 68 publications and 1402 outcomes. The median number of participants per trial was 299, and 44% of the trials were published in general medical journals. A median of 31% (10th-90th percentile range 5%-67%) of outcomes measured to assess the efficacy of an intervention (efficacy outcomes) and 59% (0%-100%) of those measured to assess the harm of an intervention (harm outcomes) per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant efficacy outcomes had a higher odds than nonsignificant efficacy outcomes of being fully reported (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval 1.5-5.0). Primary outcomes differed between protocols and publications for 40% of the trials. INTERPRETATION: Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials.