Iopaque 300 vs. Omnipaque 300: Comparison of Efficacy and Adverse Effects in Peripheral Angiography

Background and Objectives: The contrast medium has to be selected with regard to safety and efficacy. Io-hexol is produced in Iran by the brand name of Iopaque. But even now, there are some concerns about using this brand instead of the traditional and more expensive brand (Omnipaque). This study was designed to compare the safety and radiographic effi-cacy of Iopaque 300 mg I/ml and Omnipaque 300 mg I/ml in peripheral angiography. Materials and Methods: eighty-four patients ran-domly received one of the two different brands of contrast mediums iohexol (300 mg I/ml): Iopaque (Daroopakhsh, Tehran, Iran) and Omnipaque (Ny-comed Imaging AS, Oslo, Norway). The radiological efficacy of the drugs was compared on the basis of distribution of vascular enhancement and the amount of radiodensity in arterial, capillary, and venous phases of angiography, using visual analogue scale (VAS). The adverse events were recorded by a close follow-up by the investigator at baseline and on hours 1 and 4, and 3 days after angiography. Results: Baseline characteristics including sex, age, and type of angiography were not statistically differ-ent between the two study groups (P>0.05). Both contrast agents produced acceptable visualization of the vascular structures [VAS: 8.2±1.4 and 8.1±1.5 in Omnipaque and Iopaque groups respectively, P>0.05]. Twenty-three patients in each group showed early and delayed adverse reactions related to contrast me-dia. Changes in biochemical parameters were not sta-tistically and clinically important. Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of Iopaque and Omnipaque in peripheral angiography appear to be similar.