ライフサイエンスコーパス: iohexol

1 inst induction of pancreatic inflammation by iohexol.

2 rement (mGFR) by the plasma disappearance of iohexol.

3 Iodixanol, 8 (16%) to Iomeprol and 4 (8%) to Iohexol.

4 in GFR, measured by the plasma clearance of iohexol.

5 s were injected with 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mL of iohexol.

6 IV administration of a nontoxic 5-mL dose of iohexol.

7 as a GFR tracer in patients by comparison to iohexol.

8 They received a similar iodine load with iohexol 300 and were studied with a similar technique.

9 ted contrast material (50% and full-strength iohexol 300).

10 omography (CT) of the abdomen with 100 mL of iohexol (300 mg iodine per milliliter, Omnipaque; GE Hea

11 A 150-mL dose of iohexol (300 mg of iodine per milliliter) (Omnipaque; Ny

12 dual-contrast-enhanced CT (triglyceride plus iohexol [425 mg I/kg]).

13 logram of body weight [mg I/kg]), CTAP (with iohexol [600 mg I/kg]), triglyceride-enhanced CT (126 mg

14 the baseline-adjusted GFR, as measured with iohexol, after 3 years plus a 2-month washout period.

15 tion rate (GFR) was directly measured (using iohexol) along with 12 markers of inflammation in Multic

16 GFR measured by the plasma disappearance of iohexol among 391 participants in the Chronic Kidney Dis

17 bitridol, 4 (9.5%) to Ioxaglate, 3 (7.1%) to Iohexol and 1 (2.4%) to Iopramide.

18 A total of 539 patients (258 receiving iohexol and 281 not receiving contrast material) were en

19 the plasma clearance of an IV single dose of iohexol and estimation of glomerular filtration rate wit

20 particles, prepared through cross-linking of iohexol and hexamethylene diisocyanate followed by copre

21 d with 1.5 mL per kilogram of body weight of iohexol and imaged between 2.5 and 10 minutes after inje

22 rved in 37 (14.3%) of 258 subjects receiving iohexol and in seven (2.5%) of 281 subjects in the contr

23 essary to image the specific distribution of iohexol and liposome simultaneously and independently, e

24 imated by DXA; GFR and RPF were estimated by iohexol and p-aminohippurate clearance; albuminuria was

25 The iohexol and subsequent ICM shortage has short-term (week

26 ng 1-compartment plasma clearance models and iohexol as the exogenous filtration marker.

27 equilibrium CT protocol was developed using iohexol at 300 mg of iodine per milliliter (bolus of 1 m

28 re at 0.625 and 1.25 mmol/L of gadolinium in iohexol at both magnet strengths.

29 ondary outcomes included the decrease in the iohexol-based GFR per year and the urinary albumin excre

30 The mean decrease in the iohexol-based GFR was -3.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) p

31 ut, the between-group difference in the mean iohexol-based GFR was 0.001 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2)

32 The mean baseline iohexol-based GFR was 68.7 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) i

33 ermined by measuring the plasma clearance of iohexol) between the baseline value and the last availab

34 tandem mass spectrometry and measured GFR by iohexol clearance (iGFR).

35 idney donor candidates and compare this with iohexol clearance (reference standard for measuring GFR)

36 rular filtration rate formula as compared to iohexol clearance among patients with shock.

37 m kidney donor candidates who underwent both iohexol clearance and CT urography between July 2016 and

38 vels, Kidney Injury Marker-1 expression, and iohexol clearance at 3 mo did not differ significantly b

39 ABP was measured at baseline, and iohexol clearance at baseline and twice during follow-up

40 Iohexol clearance calculation with a population pharmaco

41 impact of a Bayesian estimation procedure on iohexol clearance estimates, and we identified an optima

42 ong 99 included patients, we could calculate iohexol clearance for 85.

43 earance Survey, GFR was measured with plasma iohexol clearance in 1627 individuals without diabetes,

44 Participants' GFR was measured by plasma iohexol clearance in 2007-2009 (n=1627), 2013-2015 (n=13

45 ree-compartment model is optimal to estimate iohexol clearance in elderly patients with reduced GFR.

46 We demonstrated the feasibility of iohexol clearance measurement in unstable critically ill

47 eneral population through a meta-analysis of iohexol clearance measurements in three large European p

48 The Renal Iohexol Clearance Survey (RENIS) cohort is a representat

49 In the Renal Iohexol Clearance Survey (RENIS) in northern Europe, we

50 In the Renal Iohexol Clearance Survey, GFR was measured with plasma i

51 All patients had iohexol clearance to measure GFR at evaluation under sta

52 rment in one patient out of two; the bias of iohexol clearance toward 24-hour urinary creatinine clea

53 R values falling within 10%, 20%, and 30% of iohexol clearance values).

54 The median iohexol clearance was 31 mL/min (interquartile range, 16

55 Iohexol clearance was an estimation of the mean glomerul

56 (mean difference between CT-measured GFR and iohexol clearance), precision (the distance between quar

57 According to iohexol clearance, 41 patients (48%) had severe hypofilt

58 by measured glomerular filtration rate using iohexol clearance, a relationship not detected using est

59 nsplant function, measured by creatinine and iohexol clearance, after utilizing kidneys from porcine

60 measurements of creatinine, cystatin C, and iohexol clearance, all three equations performed similar

61 Using arterial tonometry, iohexol clearance, and magnetic resonance imaging, we re

62 nd GFR, determined by measurement of urinary iohexol clearance, measured 2 weeks after Tx.

63 tic glomerular filtration rate formulas with iohexol clearance, with or without creatinine concentrat

64 on after 3 mo, as measured by creatinine and iohexol clearance.

65 ured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) using iohexol clearance.

66 post injection, were sufficient to estimate iohexol clearance.

67 measurements of creatinine, cystatin C, and iohexol clearance.

68 ed good agreement with GFR measured based on iohexol clearance.

69 cted Moran and Myers value was within 30% of iohexol-clearance-measured glomerular filtration rate fo

70 rance of iothalamate and plasma clearance of iohexol compared with inulin clearance.

71 velopment group comprising 546 patients with iohexol concentration data up to 300 min post injection.

72 n rate (GFR) was measured directly by plasma iohexol disappearance.

73 milar patterns of implant size expansion and iohexol distribution in the implants were observed both

74 Animals underwent nonenhanced, iohexol-enhanced (600 mg of iodine per kilogram of body

75 five helical CT examinations: unenhanced CT, iohexol-enhanced CT (600 mg iodine per kilogram of body

76 ual-contrast-enhanced CT (112.4 HU +/- 1.2), iohexol-enhanced CT (97.9 HU +/- 2.2), triglyceride-enha

77 nhanced CT was significantly greater than at iohexol-enhanced CT (P < .05), and attenuation differenc

78 trast-enhanced CT were greater than those at iohexol-enhanced CT or at CTAP (P < .05).

79 ively improved liver lesion detection versus iohexol-enhanced CT.

80 for ITG-dual-enhanced scans as compared with iohexol-enhanced scans (P: <.01).

81 demonstrated similar liver opacification to iohexol-enhanced scans obtained with 600 mg of iodine pe

82 quations in 187 former kidney donors against iohexol GFR for measuring GFR.

83 < or =1.5 mg/dl were compared with standard iohexol GFR values.

84 most precise at 0.41, and were within 30% of iohexol GFR, 89.3 and 96% of the time, respectively.

85 Median iohexol-GFR (iGFR) was 41.3 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (interq

86 effectiveness of ICM substitution (ie, using iohexol in a patient with a previous iopromide reaction)

87 easured GFR (mGFR) using plasma clearance of iohexol in Stockholm, Sweden, who had 9404 concurrent me

88 nstrated identical concentrations of Na+ and iohexol in ureteral effluent (UE) compared with circulat

89 h a computed tomography (CT) contrast agent, iohexol (Ioh-Lipo), which has specific amide protons exc

90 y contrast media (ICM) iopamidol, iopromide, iohexol, iomeprol, and diatrizoate was examined in purif

91 four low-osmolar contrast media (ioxaglate, iohexol, iopamidol, and ioversol) were compared.

92 fferent CM (iobitridol, iomeprol, iodixanol, iohexol, ioversol, iopramide and ioxaglate).

93 Plasma clearance of iohexol is a pivotal metric to quantify glomerular filtr

94 lar, iodinated intravenous products, such as iohexol, is unlikely to have a clinically important effe

95 ation, administration, and safety aspects of iohexol, laboratory analysis, blood sample collection an

96 ar cells, but not HEK293 or COS7 cells, with iohexol led to a peak and then plateau in Ca(2+) signali

97 s GFR as measured by plasma disappearance of iohexol, likely a result of a change in methods used to

98 Blood and urine chemistries, as well as iohexol-measured GFR, were assessed before and after eac

99 ntional small-molecule contrast agents, poly(iohexol) nanoparticles exhibited substantially protracte

100 Biocompatible poly(iohexol) nanoparticles, prepared through cross-linking o

101 fter intravenous administration of 120 mL of iohexol (Omnipaque 350; GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ) in

102 uman acinar cells to the radiocontrast agent iohexol (Omnipaque; GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ) and me

103 of intravenous contrast material (100 mL of iohexol, Omnipaque 350; GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ).

104 ith 150 mL of intravenous contrast material (iohexol, Omnipaque; Amersham Healthcare, Cork, Ireland)

105 ter, she underwent contrast-enhanced (100 mL iohexol, Omnipaque; GE Healthcare, Cork, Ireland) abdomi

106 re greater with lower iodine doses than with iohexol or at CTAP.

107 contrast material (59 who underwent CT with iohexol or iodixanol and 81 who underwent MR imaging wit

108 , 150 mL of 60% iodinated contrast material (iohexol or iothalamate meglumine) was injected at either

109 ured either via exogenous markers (eg, DTPA, iohexol), or estimated using equations.

110 e (GFR) using the slope-intercept method for iohexol plasma clearance (mGFR) in population cohorts fr

111 Iohexol plasma clearance measurement as gold standard.

112 tatin c-based formulas with a gold standard (iohexol plasma clearance) in 193 renal transplant recipi

113 Primary outcome was measured GFR (iohexol plasma clearance).

114 erular filtration rateiohexol measured using iohexol plasma clearance: 19 2 vs 16 2 mL/min/1.73 m2; p

115 ine arterial blood samples over 24 hours for iohexol plasma concentration measurements.

116 Dilution of gadolinium into iohexol reduced the signal intensity in all samples comp

117 at rest, immediately after an 8-mL bolus of iohexol, repeated after a second 8-mL bolus, and during

118 triglyceride (especially when combined with iohexol), sensitivity values and liver-to-lesion attenua

119 The recent iohexol shortage has precipitated disruptions in a pharm

120 Materials and Methods Seven 50-mL iohexol solutions were used, with concentrations of 0.03

121 is diluted into a 50% or greater strength of iohexol, the signal intensity curve shifts so that the m

122 he plasma clearance of the endogenous marker iohexol, to compare performance of existing equations of

123 GFR determination (iohexol urinary clearance) was conducted in hours 2-3 an

124 Swine cervices were injected with EC-ethanol iohexol using both injectors.

125 t of urine from neonates who did not receive iohexol was 5.6 HU +/- 3.9, and that from neonates witho

126 m 22 neonates were obtained 8-12 hours after iohexol was administered enterally.

127 ecrotizing enterocolitis who did not receive iohexol was collected.

128 Iohexol was selected as it is non-radio labeled, inexpen

129 In all examinations, iohexol was used as the contrast agent.

130 Hydrodissection (0.9% saline with 2% iohexol) was injected in 17 of 22 (77.3%) procedures to

131 Relmapirazin and iohexol were administered intravenously in consecutive b

132 ution was unveiled by the CT contrast agent, iohexol, where it shows a core-shell structure of the de

133 e urine was greater than or equal to that of iohexol with no reported severe adverse events.

134 gested nonionic iodinated contrast material (iohexol) with a concentration of 300 mg per milliliter w