Gordon I J, Skoblar R S, Chicatelli P D, Leon J
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984 Mar;142(3):563-5. doi: 10.2214/ajr.142.3.563.
A double-blind clinical trial was performed in 61 adults in an attempt to compare the safety and efficacy of an ionic with a nonionic contrast agent in peripheral angiography. Objective clinical (vital signs) and laboratory factors (complete blood count, serum electrolytes, serum chemistry, urinalysis, and urine chemistry) were monitored before, during, and after the examination on each patient. There was no statistically significant difference in pre- and posttest laboratory and clinical parameters between those patients who received ionic and those who received nonionic contrast material. Data also were collected to evaluate pain and radiographic quality. The most striking finding was the marked diminution of perceived pain in those patients who received nonionic contrast material compared with those who did not. The data suggest that nonionic contrast agents are at least as safe as the ionic agents currently in use and produce an examination of equal quality with considerably less patient discomfort.
对61名成年人进行了一项双盲临床试验，旨在比较离子型和非离子型造影剂在外周血管造影中的安全性和有效性。在每位患者检查前、检查期间和检查后，监测客观临床指标（生命体征）和实验室指标（全血细胞计数、血清电解质、血清化学、尿液分析和尿化学）。接受离子型造影剂和接受非离子型造影剂的患者在检查前和检查后的实验室及临床参数方面，差异无统计学意义。还收集了数据以评估疼痛情况和造影质量。最显著的发现是，与未接受非离子型造影剂的患者相比，接受非离子型造影剂的患者感觉到的疼痛明显减轻。数据表明，非离子型造影剂至少与目前使用的离子型造影剂一样安全，且能产生质量相当的检查效果，同时患者不适感大大减轻。
