AJR Get Involved! Great Benefits! Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Seltzer, S.
Right arrow Articles by VanDeripe, D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Seltzer, S.
Right arrow Articles by VanDeripe, D
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 145, Issue 1, 67-72
Copyright © 1985 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Experimental evaluation of iosefamate meglumine and its derivatives as hepatobiliary CT contrast agents

SE Seltzer, C Hamilton, and D VanDeripe

Iosefamate meglumine has attracted attention as a possible hepatobiliary contrast agent for CT scanning. However, its limited hepatic opacification has prevented clinical acceptance. To find a more efficient agent, the efficacy and toxicity of six derivatives of iosefamate were compared with those of the parent compound in dogs. Twenty dogs received intravenous doses ranging from 150 to 600 mg I/kg of one of these seven water-soluble, ionic, dimeric agents. Three control animals received equivalent amounts of physiologic saline. The CT densities of liver, biliary tract, kidneys, and blood were then measured for up to 3 hr. Toxicity tests of liver and kidney function were performed for up to 3 days. Among the new agents, only MI-294, a previously unreported compound, proved to be a slightly more efficient hepatic opacifier than iosefamate (0.40 vs. 0.34 H per mg I/kg, respectively). MI-294 was also the least toxic. However, transient abnormalities in at least one liver function test were observed with every agent at some dose level. One animal died with hepatic necrosis after receiving iosefamate. No renal impairment was noted in any case. MI-294 has advantages over iosefamate as a CT liver and biliary opacifier in dogs. Potential hepatotoxicity of this class of agents needs to be more fully evaluated.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.