ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of ioversol and iodixanol related adverse drug reactions in cerebrovascular interventional procedures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The incidence of iodinated contrast media (ICM)-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) varies significantly by procedure type. Compared other procedure types, cerebrovascular interventional procedures substantially increase the incidence of contrast-induced encephalopathy (0.38-2.90%). The associations of ioversol (nonionic low-osmolal ICM) with central nervous system (CNS) ADRs and iodixanol (nonionic ios-osmolal ICM) with cutaneous ADR manifestations have been establishe. This study aimed to compare the incidence of CNS ADRs and evaluate the occurrence, extent, and risk factors for ADRs associated with ioversol and iodixanol use during cerebrovascular interventional procedures. We conducted a prospective study involving 1,015 participants with suspected cerebrovascular diseases from July 2019 to July 2022. Participants underwent cerebrovascular interventional procedures with either iodixanol or ioversol administration. Data on ioversol and iodixanol-related CNS ADRs, data on other ADRs, and participants' baseline information were collected. Out of 848 participants (average age, 61.5 ± 12.6 years; 205 females) who received ICM, 16.7% (142 of 848) experienced CNS ADRs. Compared with iodixanol, ioversol was associated with a greater rate of CNS ADRs (12.6% vs. 21.1%, P = 0.001, RR = 1.666). Iodixanol was associated with higher rates of numbness and blurred vision (29.1% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.042), whereas ioversol was associated with higher incidences of headache and overall ADRs during the procedures (20.0% vs. 46.0%, P = 0.002). Logistic regression analysis revealed that a history of allergic diseases was a risk factor for iodixanol-related ADRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-4.9; P = 0.010). Severe cerebral vascular stenosis (OR, 2.8; 95% CI: 1.8-4.4; P < 0.001), female sex (OR, 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-0.8; P = 0.005) and relatively young age (OR, 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.99; P = 0.004) were risk factors for ioversol-related ADRs. Iodixanol appears to have a lower likelihood of causing ICM-related CNS ADRs than does ioversol during cerebrovascular interventional procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.