{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01752021563342318, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01078167115902965, 'mean_word_length': 5.693693693693693, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A double-blind randomized clinical study of the use of Hexabrix in pediatric angiocardiography.

A double-blind clinical study of 50 children undergoing cardiac catheterization was performed to evaluate Hexabrix and Renografin-76 in pediatric angiocardiography. The contrast agents were randomly assigned. There was no statistical difference in image quality between Hexabrix and Renografin-76 at similar iodine concentrations and no subjective difference in radio-opacity or overall angiographic quality. Little or no discomfort was experienced with Hexabrix whereas with Renografin-76, there was more pain. Hexabrix may be advantageous for cardiovascular diagnosis since motion artifact due to pain can adversely affect angiographic detail.