Effect of bolus administration of non-ionic radiopaque contrast media on blood pressure variation

Authors: John, A.M. and Yadav, S.

Journal: Radiography

Volume: 25

Issue: 4

Pages: 346-348

eISSN: 1532-2831

ISSN: 1078-8174

DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.04.008

Abstract:

Introduction: Haemodynamic changes may occur with the rapid intravenous injection of contrast media due to the osmolality of such pharmaceuticals. This study sought to evaluate the effect of bolus administration of intravenous contrast media on blood pressure variation during the Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) of the abdomen. Methods: The study included 74 patients who underwent abdominal CECT and they were placed in the first group receiving a maximum of 80 ml of iodinated contrast via pressure injector (4 ml/s). A further 74 patients, who underwent non-contrast enhanced abdominal CT, were placed in the second group in which 80 ml of normal saline was administered via the same manner. Patients with hypertension and who were on anti-hypertensive drugs were excluded from the study. Non-invasive blood pressure was monitored before the injection of contrast media/saline and immediately after the portal venous phase for the CECT scan and after 45 s following the administration of normal saline in the non-contrast CT group. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures from both groups were compared to find out the effect of contrast bolus administration on blood pressure variation. Results: Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased with the injection of contrast media among CECT scan group. No significant changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were found before and after the scan in the non-contrast group. Conclusion: Bolus administration of 80 ml saline has no effect on blood pressure. The increased blood pressure in contrast enhanced studies was induced by the iodinated contrast media and not by the bolus effect.

Source: Scopus

Effect of bolus administration of non-ionic radiopaque contrast media on blood pressure variation.

Authors: John, A.M. and Yadav, S.

Journal: Radiography (Lond)

Volume: 25

Issue: 4

Pages: 346-348

eISSN: 1532-2831

DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.04.008

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Haemodynamic changes may occur with the rapid intravenous injection of contrast media due to the osmolality of such pharmaceuticals. This study sought to evaluate the effect of bolus administration of intravenous contrast media on blood pressure variation during the Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) of the abdomen. METHODS: The study included 74 patients who underwent abdominal CECT and they were placed in the first group receiving a maximum of 80 ml of iodinated contrast via pressure injector (4 ml/s). A further 74 patients, who underwent non-contrast enhanced abdominal CT, were placed in the second group in which 80 ml of normal saline was administered via the same manner. Patients with hypertension and who were on anti-hypertensive drugs were excluded from the study. Non-invasive blood pressure was monitored before the injection of contrast media/saline and immediately after the portal venous phase for the CECT scan and after 45 s following the administration of normal saline in the non-contrast CT group. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures from both groups were compared to find out the effect of contrast bolus administration on blood pressure variation. RESULTS: Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased with the injection of contrast media among CECT scan group. No significant changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were found before and after the scan in the non-contrast group. CONCLUSION: Bolus administration of 80 ml saline has no effect on blood pressure. The increased blood pressure in contrast enhanced studies was induced by the iodinated contrast media and not by the bolus effect.

Source: PubMed

Effect of bolus administration of non-ionic radiopaque contrast media on blood pressure variation

Authors: John, A.M. and Yadav, S.

Journal: RADIOGRAPHY

Volume: 25

Issue: 4

Pages: 346-348

eISSN: 1532-2831

ISSN: 1078-8174

DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.04.008

Source: Web of Science (Lite)

Effect of bolus administration of non-ionic radiopaque contrast media on blood pressure variation.

Authors: John, A.M. and Yadav, S.

Journal: Radiography (London, England : 1995)

Volume: 25

Issue: 4

Pages: 346-348

eISSN: 1532-2831

ISSN: 1078-8174

DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.04.008

Abstract:

Introduction

Haemodynamic changes may occur with the rapid intravenous injection of contrast media due to the osmolality of such pharmaceuticals. This study sought to evaluate the effect of bolus administration of intravenous contrast media on blood pressure variation during the Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) of the abdomen.

Methods

The study included 74 patients who underwent abdominal CECT and they were placed in the first group receiving a maximum of 80 ml of iodinated contrast via pressure injector (4 ml/s). A further 74 patients, who underwent non-contrast enhanced abdominal CT, were placed in the second group in which 80 ml of normal saline was administered via the same manner. Patients with hypertension and who were on anti-hypertensive drugs were excluded from the study. Non-invasive blood pressure was monitored before the injection of contrast media/saline and immediately after the portal venous phase for the CECT scan and after 45 s following the administration of normal saline in the non-contrast CT group. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures from both groups were compared to find out the effect of contrast bolus administration on blood pressure variation.

Results

Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased with the injection of contrast media among CECT scan group. No significant changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were found before and after the scan in the non-contrast group.

Conclusion

Bolus administration of 80 ml saline has no effect on blood pressure. The increased blood pressure in contrast enhanced studies was induced by the iodinated contrast media and not by the bolus effect.

Source: Europe PubMed Central