This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

SOLOMON R. BERSACK, M.D.; THOMAS E. WHITAKER, Jr., M.D.

AMA Arch Intern Med. 1953;91(5):618-625.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

ALTHOUGH iodopyracet (diodrast^®) is the most commonly employed contrast material for intravenous urography, it has many undesirable reactions. The majority of these are not serious and are of brief duration, such as flushing, nausea, sneezing, and urticaria. Occosionally, however, one encounters reactions of a graver nature, and with the extensive use of this contrast material over many years several anaphylactoid deaths directly attributable to its intravenous injection have been recorded in the literature.¹

Many authors believe that a fair proportion of the side-reactions have an allergic basis. In the light of present trends to incriminate histamine as the means by which allergic phenomena are mediated, a study was undertaken to determine the effect of administering an antihistaminic just prior to the injection of iodopyracet.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

The first series comprises 200 patients who were referred for intravenous urography. A detailed personal and family history with regard to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
WASHINGTON, D. C.

From the Department of Radiology, Mount Alto Veterans Hospital.

Footnotes
Published with the permission of the Chief Medical Director, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Veterans Administration, who assumes no responsibility for the opinions expressed or conclusions drawn by the authors.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?