Key result
Gadobenate dimeglumine does not prolong QTc compared to placebo.
Why the study?
Does intravenous gadobenate dimeglumine prolong the QTc interval or cause adverse electrophysiologic effects compared to placebo in healthy volunteers and patients with CAD?
RCT (n=47)
Blinded assessment
Randomized crossover
Does intravenous gadobenate dimeglumine prolong the QTc interval or cause adverse electrophysiologic effects compared to placebo in healthy volunteers and patients with CAD?
Intravenous injection of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine does not significantly prolong the QTc interval or cause detrimental electrophysiologic effects compared to placebo in healthy volunteers or CAD patients.
Supports gadobenate dimeglumine use without QTc monitoring in CAD; confirms cardiac safety versus placebo in this RCT.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare intraindividual effects of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine and placebo (saline) on cardiac electrophysiology in healthy volunteers and patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gadobenate dimeglumine and saline placebo were injected intravenously approximately 72 hours apart in randomized crossover fashion in 24 healthy volunteers and 23 patients with CAD. Twelve-lead ambulatory (Holter) electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring was performed from 3 hours preinjection to 24 hours postinjection. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation was performed with automated algorithmic interpretations and blinded assessment by one cardiologist. Possible QT-interval prolongation was evaluated after correction for heart rate on an individualized basis and by means of Bazett formula. Statistical analyses based on two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were performed by using a linear model for a two-period crossover design. All subjects were monitored for vital signs, laboratory variables, and adverse events. RESULTS: Placebo was administered before contrast agent in 12 volunteers and 12 patients and after contrast agent in 12 volunteers and 11 patients. For mean increase in QTc interval from baseline, a nonsignificant difference of 3.1 msec was noted between gadobenate dimeglumine and placebo (95% CI: -1.8, 8.0) after individualized correction. Overcorrection for heart rate was noted with Bazett formula (mean difference, 5.6 msec; 95% CI: -2.2, 13.5). Cardiologist findings were consistent with automated readings. Similar findings were noted for healthy volunteers and patients with CAD. No differences between treatments were noted for any evaluation, although more frequent qualitative changes were noted in patients with CAD. Adverse events were noted in seven of 47 (15%) subjects after gadobenate dimeglumine injection and in five of 47 (11%) subjects after injection of placebo. CONCLUSION: Injection of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine has no detrimental effect on cardiac electrophysiology or other safety parameters in healthy volunteers or patients with CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pirovano et al. (2004) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease and healthy volunteers (n=47). Gadobenate dimeglumine vs. Placebo (saline) was evaluated on Mean increase in QTc interval from baseline (MD 3.1 msec, 95% CI -1.8, 8.0, p=nonsignificant). Injection of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine did not significantly prolong the QTc interval compared to placebo (mean difference 3.1 msec; 95% CI -1.8 to 8.0).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: