According to ARRS’ American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), the resources required to warm iohexol 350 to body temperature before injection for computed tomography (CT) may not be warranted, given the lack of observed practical benefit.

Values represent number of patients, with percentage in parentheses and 95% CI in brackets (not reported for levels of severity of allergic/allergic-like reactions). 95% CIs were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact formula. For events with zero frequency, one-sided 97.5% CIs are provided.


July 30, 2021 — According to ARRS’ American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), the resources required to warm iohexol 350 to body temperature before injection for computed tomography (CT) may not be warranted, given the lack of observed practical benefit.

“The data suggest that maintaining iohexol 350 at room temperature is non-inferior to warming the agent to body temperature before injection,” wrote first investigator Noor Basharat from the department of radiology at Valleywise Health in Phoenix, Ariz.

Although extrinsically warming iodinated CT contrast media to body temperature can reduce viscosity and injection pressures, clinical data examining its effect on adverse events are both limited and conflicting. Basharat and team’s retrospective study compared adult patients who received CT examinations using the low osmolality contrast media agent iohexol 350 (Omnipaque) that had either been warmed to body temperature or maintained at room temperature.

Among 3,939 patients (2,115 men, 1,824 women; median age, 48.0 years) who underwent CT using iohexol 350 prewarmed to body temperature, the adverse reaction rate was 0.28% — not significantly different (p=.69) from the reaction rate of 0.43% among 3,933 patients (1,992 men, 1,941 women; median age, 48.6 years) who received iohexol 350 maintained at room temperature. Furthermore, the risk difference in the body temperature group for adverse reactions relative to the room temperature group was below the non-inferiority margin of 0.6%.  

Acknowledging that their results do not include the impact of extrinsic warming on other endpoints (i.e., image quality, patient comfort, etc.), “our findings question the utility of prewarming contrast media, which can be a resource-intensive process,” the authors of this AJR article maintained.

For more information: www.arrs.org


Additional Content

News | Lung Imaging

Nov.2, 2026 – SimonMed has announced the clinical launch of two advanced lung imaging technologies, CT:VQ and LDAf, in ...

Time November 02, 2026
arrow
News | Contrast Media

Oct. 27, 2026 – Bracco has announced plans to invest $230 million to establish its first U.S. manufacturing facility for ...

Time October 28, 2026
arrow
News | Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

Oct. 26, 2026 — Dr. Kathryn Keenan is one of seven public servants from various federal agencies who will be honored at ...

Time October 27, 2026
arrow
News | Radiology Business

Oct. 26, 2026 — RadNet, Inc. has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire ONRAD, Inc., a provider of teleradiology ...

Time October 27, 2026
arrow
News | Radiology Imaging

Oct. 19, 2026 — Paradromics Inc. has announced a collaboration with Siemens Healthineers to develop an advanced ...

Time October 26, 2026
arrow
Subscribe Now