Impact of contrast agent type (ionic versus nonionic) used for coronary angiography on angiographic, electrocardiographic, and clinical outcomes following thrombolytic administration in acute myocardial infarction

The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between contrast agent type (ionic vs. nonionic) and angiographic, electrocardiographic, and clinical outcomes after thrombolytic administration. Ionic or nonionic contrast agents were selected in a nonrandomized fashion for 90‐min angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following thrombolytic administration in the TIMI 14 trial [tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or reteplase (rPA) vs. low‐dose lytic + abciximab]. There was no relationship between contrast agent type and overall patency, rate of TIMI grade 3 flow, or corrected TIMI frame counts (CTFCs) in open culprit arteries and in post‐PCI patency rates or post‐PCI CTFCs. In patients treated with ionic contrast, ejection fractions at 90 min were slightly but significantly lower (56.2 ± 16.5, n = 122, vs. 59.8 ± 14.4, n = 322; P = 0.02), chest pain duration was longer (2.8 ± 4.1 hr, n = 255, vs. 1.7 ± 3.6, n = 550; P = 0.0003), and complete ST segment resolution was less frequent (41.5% vs. 50.8%; P = 0.04). While there was no difference in epicardial blood flow, ionic contrast agent use was associated with poorer ST segment resolution, longer chest pain duration, and poorer ejection fractions, perhaps as a result of microvascular dysfunction. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2001;53:6–11. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.