Cardiac effects of adding electrolytes and oxygen to iohexol in a dog model of contrast media-induced ventricular fibrillation.
ABSTRACT We investigated whether addition of a balanced electrolyte supplement and oxygen to the nonionic contrast medium iohexol reduces the risk of ventricular fibrillation (VF), and studied regional electrophysiology prior to the VF event. Twenty ml of each test solution were infused at a rate of 0.5 ml/s into the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) in 8 anesthetized dogs. LAD was externally occluded during infusion, to simulate a wedged catheter situation. ECG, hemodynamics, regional epicardial monophasic action potential duration (MAPD) and ventricular activation times (VAT) were calculated. All infusions with iohexol caused VF within 27 s. Five of 12 infusions with iohexol + 30 mmol NaCl, 3 of 11 infusions with iohexol+electrolytes (IPE) NaCl, KCl, CaCl2 and MgCl2) and 4 of 11 infusions with IPE with oxygen addition (IPE+O2) caused VF after 45 s. Iohexol did not change MAPD prior to the VF event. Iohexol + 30 mmol NaCl and the IPE solutions lengthened MAPD initially, but at the time of the VF event MAPD were normalized or shortened. We conclude that electrolyte supplement to iohexol may prevent VF, probably by lengthening MAPD.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We investigated the cardiac effects of single and repeated contrast media injections in dogs with heart failure and compared the effects of iohexol with iohexol supplemented with electrolytes (30 mmol/l NaCl, 0.15 mmol/l CaCl2, 0.9 mmol/l KCl, and 0.1 mmol/l MgCl2; iohexol + electrolytes [IPE]). Although it has a higher osmolality than iohexol, IPE appears to be safer when injected through a wedged catheter. Acute ischemic heart failure was induced by injections of small plastic microspheres into the left coronary artery of 16 anesthetized dogs. Iohexol, IPE, and Ringer acetate were injected into the left coronary artery either as a 5-ml single injection or repeatedly five times, once every 10th second. Single injections of iohexol and IPE induced small hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects. However, repeated injections of iohexol and IPE increased the maximum rate of isovolumetric contraction by 46% and 36%, reduced heart rate by 8% and 7%, and lengthened QTc (the Q-T interval corrected for heart rate) time by 44 and 39 msec, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in a comparison of IPE and iohexol. During heart failure, repeated injections of iohexol and IPE induced similar additive hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects without inducing arrhythmias or serious hemodynamic changes.Academic Radiology 12/1995; 2(11):973-9. · 2.08 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We investigated the possible cardiac effects of oxygen addition to contrast media (CM) during coronary arteriography in dogs that did and did not have ischemic heart failure. Acute ischemic heart failure was induced by injecting small plastic microspheres into the left coronary artery of 18 dogs. Hemodynamic and electrophysiologic measurements were performed during a single injection before and during heart failure and during a single injection and five rapidly repeated CM injections during heart failure. Iohexol supplemented with electrolytes (iohexol + electrolytes = IPE), oxygenated IPE (IPE+O), Ringer acetate, and oxygenated Ringer acetate were injected into the left coronary artery. Single injections of IPE and IPE+O induced small hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects. However, repeated injections of IPE and IPE+O increased left ventricular inotropy (maximum value of the first derivative of the left ventricular pressure) by 36% and 39%, reduced heart rate by 7% (for both), and lengthened QTc time (corrected QT interval) by 39 and 38 msec, respectively. A comparison of IPE and IPE+O revealed no statistically significant differences. Although electrolyte addition to nonionic CM may reduce the risk of cardiac complications during coronary arteriography, oxygenation does not seem to significantly further reduce this risk.Academic Radiology 07/1996; 3(6):493-9. · 2.08 Impact Factor
- Academic Radiology 10/1996; 3(9):781-5. · 2.08 Impact Factor