Summary
In a prospective double-blind comparison of contrast media for retrograde pancreatography, 85 consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) were randomised to receive either the non-ionic medium, iopamidol (Niopam) or the ionic medium, meglumine diatrizoate (Urografin). The quality of pancreatograms obtained was assessed “blindly” using a specially devised scoring system, and patients were observed for clinical and biochemical evidence of acute pancreatitis following ERCP.
Pancreatogram scores were similar in the “Niopam” and “Urografin” groups. No patients developed clinical evidence of acute pancreatitis. Eighteen hours after ERCP median increments in serum amylase and lipase in the “Niopam” group were significantly lower and hyperamylasemia and hyperlipasemia significantly less frequent than in the “Urografin” group.
Niopam may be a safer contrast medium than Urografin for retrograde pancreatography, particularly in patients in whom the risk of acute pancreatitis is high. However, in view of its relatively high cost, further direct clinical evidence of reduced toxicity is required before Niopam can be recommended for routine use at ERCP.
Key words:
Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography - Contrast media
