Key result
Carbon dioxide-guided EVAR significantly reduced the mean iodinated contrast dose (18 vs. 55 mL, P<0.0001) while maintaining similar technical success and short-term outcomes compared to IC-EVAR.
Why the study?
Does carbon dioxide-guided angiography provide comparable outcomes and renal protection compared to iodinated contrast in patients undergoing EVAR?
Cohort (n=381)
Does carbon dioxide-guided angiography provide comparable outcomes and renal protection compared to iodinated contrast in patients undergoing EVAR?
CO2-guided angiography during EVAR is technically feasible and offers renal protection for patients with severe renal dysfunction or contrast allergies, with comparable midterm outcomes to standard iodinated contrast.
May support CO2 use in EVAR patients with renal risk; leaves open randomized confirmation of safety.
Background Although iodinated contrast (IC) agents are commonly used in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), perioperative use in patients with renal dysfunction or IC allergies is avoided. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 )-guided angiography is a promising alternative. We aimed to evaluate short-term and midterm outcomes of EVAR using CO 2 -guided angiography. Methods Three hundred eighty-one patients who underwent EVAR from January 2012 to September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and divided into an IC-EVAR group ( n = 351) and CO 2 -EVAR group ( n = 30). Subjects in the CO 2 -EVAR group had severe renal dysfunction ( n = 27) and IC allergy ( n = 4). Intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up variables were compared. Results Compared with the IC-EVAR group, preoperative serum creatinine level was significantly higher (2.0 vs. 0.92 mg/dL, P < 0.0001) and mean IC dose was significantly lower (18 vs. 55 mL, P < 0.0001) in the CO 2 -EVAR group. The fluoroscopy time, operative time, number of stent grafts placed, and technical success rates of the groups were similar; no type I and/or type III endoleaks were detected on completion angiography. There was no acute kidney injury and one case of intestinal necrosis in the CO 2 -EVAR group, potentially due to cholesterol embolism. Postoperative endoleak, enlargement of aneurysms, survival, freedom from secondary intervention, and renal function change up to 3 months, postoperatively, were similar between the groups. Conclusions CO 2 -EVAR is technically feasible and exhibits prominent renal protection. However, consideration of the aortic lumen status remains an important challenge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takeuchi et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Aortic aneurysm (n=381). Carbon dioxide (CO2)-guided angiography vs. Iodinated contrast (IC)-guided angiography was evaluated on Short-term and midterm outcomes (technical success, endoleaks, survival, renal function change). Carbon dioxide-guided EVAR significantly reduced the mean iodinated contrast dose (18 vs. 55 mL, P<0.0001) while maintaining similar technical success and short-term outcomes compared to IC-EVAR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: