Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
August 1956

Major Reactions to Intravenous Urographic Media

Author Affiliations

St. Louis
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

AMA Arch Surg. 1956;73(2):285-289. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1956.01280020099019

With improved radiologic techniques and better contrast media, intravenous urography has become one of the "routine" tests frequently employed in a general physical examination. Although it is not my purpose to minimize the value of this procedure in urologic diagnosis, I wish to emphasize that the intravenous injection of any iodine-containing compound is not without danger. Therefore, intravenous urography should be employed in only those cases in which a definite clinical indication exists. I wish to report six serious reactions following intravenous pyelography, two of which terminated fatally. These reactions occurred in a series of 12,000 urograms in which sodium acetrizoate (Urokon) was used. Barry and Rose1 reported two hypotensive reactions, and Porporis and co-workers2 reported another that occurred early in this series.

In 1942 and again in 1954, Pendergrass * canvassed urologists and radiologists concerning severe or fatal reactions to various intravenous urographic media. Including his own cases,

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview