| Literature DB >> 29081903 |
Fahad Ali1, Muhammad Asif Mangi2, Hiba Rehman2, Edo Kaluski3.
Abstract
Use of X-ray contrast allows us to differentiate between two or more adjacent structures on radiographic studies. The X-ray contrast agent can be the one with increase X-ray absorption, like iodine and a barium X-ray contrast agent or the one with decrease X-ray absorption like air and carbon dioxide contrast agent. Each contrast agent possesses different risks and benefits in various ways. Carbon dioxide as an intravascular contrast agent can be used as an alternative intravascular contrast agent and has superior results in some cases. In patients with renal dysfunction or iodinated contrast allergy, the use of Iodinated Contrast Agent poses the risk of considerable morbidity. Similarly, use of Gadolinium is discouraged in subject with severe renal dysfunction. Use of carbon dioxide (CO2) as an intravascular contrast, offers an alternative in such patients for certain procedures, as it is not nephrotoxic and it does not incite allergic reactions. It is inexpensive, readily available and due to its unique physical properties, it can be used to image a wide variety of vascular beds and chambers. The aim of this paper is to systemically review the current literature to describe the indications, contraindications, adverse effects, instruments, precautions, latest methodologies and data supporting for the use of CO2 as a contrast agent.Entities:
Keywords: Carbon dioxide; Contrast; Gadolinium; Iodinated; Vascular
Year: 2017 PMID: 29081903 PMCID: PMC5633534 DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v9.i9.715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Cardiol
Figure 1The modified plastic bag system with O-ring.
Figure 4Carbon dioxide wedged hepatic protogram showing portal vein stenosis (arrow). Adapted with permission from Dr. Kyung Cho.
Summary of the characteristics of carbon dioxide and against iodinated contrast agents
| Overall sensitivity | Less | Higher |
| Overall specificity | Less | Higher |
| Nephrotoxicity | No | Yes |
| Allergenic | No | Yes |
| Cost | Low | High |
| Ease of administration | Cumbersome | Easier |
| Limitations | Visibility and air contamination | Dose related toxicity and allergy |
| Delivery | Possible | Difficult |
| Radiation exposure | Increased if digital subtraction angiography used | Standard |
| Dose | Rate related toxicity | Volume related nephrotoxicity |
| Contraindications | Pulmonary-systemic communications; not for use in heart, brain or spinal vasculature | Allergy, nephrotoxicity |
| Hepatotoxicity | Rare | Rare |
| Quality of image | Good | Better |
| Procedure duration | Increased | Standard |