Iodixanol versus Iopromide at Coronary CT Angiography: Lumen Opacification and Effect on Heart Rhythm—the Randomized IsoCOR Trial

Published Online:

If injected at comparable iodine delivery rates, the iso-osmolar contrast medium iodixanol 270 is not inferior to the low-osmolar contrast medium iopromide 300 for assessment of coronary opacification.


To show that equal coronary lumen opacification can be achieved with iso- and low-osmolar contrast media when it is injected at the same iodine delivery rate with contemporary cardiac computed tomographic (CT) protocols and to investigate the cardiovascular effect of iso-osmolar contrast media and the image quality achieved.

Materials and Methods

Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for the Effect of Iso-osmolar Contrast Medium on Coronary Opacification and Heart Rhythm in Coronary CT Angiography, or IsoCOR, trial. Between November 2015 and August 2016, 306 patients (167 [55%] women) at least 18 years old (weight range, 50–125 kg), were prospectively randomized to receive iso-osmolar iodixanol 270 or low-osmolar iopromide 300 contrast media. All coronary segments were assessed for intraluminal opacification and image quality and were compared by using the Student t test. Heart rate, arrhythmia, patient discomfort, and adverse events also were monitored.


Mean measured coronary attenuation values ± standard deviation were comparable between the iodixanol 270 and iopromide 300 contrast media groups (469 HU ± 167 vs 447 HU ± 166, respectively [P = .241]; 95% confidence interval: −15.1, 60.0), including those from subanalyses. Adjusted for the lower iodine concentration, the mean iodixanol 270 bolus was larger compared with that of iopromide 300 (76.8 mL ± 11.6 vs 69.7 mL ± 10.8, respectively; P < .001). The higher injection rate was associated with higher pressure (777 kPa ± 308 vs 630 kPa ± 252, respectively; P < .001). Although in the iodixanol 270 group patients experienced less heat discomfort (72% vs 86%, respectively; P < .001), no differences in heart rate or rhythm were observed.


If injected at comparable iodine delivery rates, the iso-osmolar contrast medium iodixanol 270 is not inferior to low-osmolar contrast medium iopromide 300 for assessment of coronary opacification. Iodixanol 270 was associated with less heat discomfort, but did not affect heart rate differently compared with iopromide 300.

© RSNA, 2017

Online supplemental material is available for this article.


  • 1. Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34(38):2949–3003. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, et al. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2008;18(9):1809–1817. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Chartrand-Lefebvre C, White CS, Bhalla S, et al. Comparison of the effect of low- and iso-osmolar contrast agents on heart rate during chest CT angiography: results of a prospective randomized multicenter study. Radiology 2011;258(3):930–937. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Davidson CJ, Erdogan AK. Contrast media: procedural capacities and potential risks. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2008;9(Suppl 1):S24–S34. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Becker CR, Vanzulli A, Fink C, et al. Multicenter comparison of high concentration contrast agent iomeprol-400 with iso-osmolar iodixanol-320: contrast enhancement and heart rate variation in coronary dual-source computed tomographic angiography. Invest Radiol 2011;46(7):457–464. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Nakazato R, Arsanjani R, Shalev A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and patient comfort for coronary CT angiography performed using iso-osmolar versus low-osmolar iodinated contrast: a prospective international multicenter randomized controlled trial. Acad Radiol 2016;23(6):743–751. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Svensson A, Ripsweden J, Rück A, Aspelin P, Cederlund K, Brismar BT. Heart rate variability and heat sensation during CT coronary angiography: Low-osmolar versus iso-osmolar contrast media. Acta Radiol 2010;51(7):722–726. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Christensen JD, Meyer LT, Hurwitz LM, Boll DT. Effects of iopamidol-370 versus iodixanol-320 on coronary contrast, branch depiction, and heart rate variability in dual-source coronary MDCT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(3):W445–W451. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Achenbach S, Paul JF, Laurent F, et al. Comparative assessment of image quality for coronary CT angiography with iobitridol and two contrast agents with higher iodine concentrations: iopromide and iomeprol. A multicentre randomized double-blind trial. Eur Radiol 2017;27(2):821–830. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Andreini D, Pontone G, Mushtaq S, et al. Coronary stent evaluation with coronary computed tomographic angiography: comparison between low-osmolar, high-iodine concentration iomeprol-400 and iso-osmolar, lower-iodine concentration iodixanol-320. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2014;8(1):44–51. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Ozbulbul NI, Yurdakul M, Tola M. Comparison of a low-osmolar contrast medium, iopamidol, and an iso-osmolar contrast medium, iodixanol, in MDCT coronary angiography. Coron Artery Dis 2010;21(7):414–419. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Romano L, Grazioli L, Bonomo L, et al. Enhancement and safety of iomeprol-400 and iodixanol-320 in patients undergoing abdominal multidetector CT. Br J Radiol 2009;82(975):204–211. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Graham I, Atar D, Borch-Johnsen K, et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: full text. Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007;14(Suppl 2):S1–S113. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40(8):1531–1540. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Sedlmair M, et al. Optimizing radiation dose by using advanced modelled iterative reconstruction in high-pitch coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2016;26(2):459–468. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Chinnaiyan KM, McCullough PA. Optimizing outcomes in coronary CT imaging. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2008;9(4):215–224. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Sahani DV, Soulez G, Chen KM, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of iopamidol-370 and iodixanol-320 in patients undergoing multidetector-row computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2007;42(12):856–861. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Reed M, Meier P, Tamhane UU, Welch KB, Moscucci M, Gurm HS. The relative renal safety of iodixanol compared with low-osmolar contrast media: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2(7):645–654. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Heinrich MC, Häberle L, Müller V, Bautz W, Uder M. Nephrotoxicity of iso-osmolar iodixanol compared with nonionic low-osmolar contrast media: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiology 2009;250(1):68–86. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received December 6, 2016; revision requested March 3, 2017; revision received May 12; accepted May 19; final version accepted May 24.
Published online: Aug 15 2017
Published in print: Jan 2018