Abstract
This was a prospective comparison of the accuracy and image quality of carbon dioxide digital subtraction angiography (CO2 DSA) and iodinated contrast digital subtraction angiography (ICDSA) in evaluating lower extremity arteries and patient tolerance of the procedures. Selective DSA was performed in 14 Taiwanese patients who were diagnosed with peripheral artery occlusive disease (PAOD). Both contrast materials were administered through mechanical injectors. Post‐processing of the image used pixel shifting. Images of vessels were divided into 22 anatomic segments and evaluated by two experienced radiologists. A four‐point scale was used to classify diseased vessels. Two interpreters rated the CO2 DSA image against the ICDSA image on a three‐point scale. Patient tolerance was assessed from verbal descriptions. Cohen's kappa was used to determine interobserver agreement and descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient experience. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to excellent, with most being good or excellent. Three patients (21.4%) could not tolerate the whole procedure and nine patients (64.3%) reported discomfort during the CO2 DSA procedure. CO2 DSA image quality was better for the thigh than the distal runoff and pelvic regions. Our results showed that selective CO2 DSA cannot replace ICDSA as a routine diagnostic tool for PAOD because it does not give images of comparative quality.
Keywords: digital subtraction angiography, contrast media, carbon dioxide, iodine, arterial occlusive diseases
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (130.1 KB).
References
- 1. Hall KA, Wong RW, Hunter GC, et al. Contrast‐induced nephrotoxicity: the effects of vasodilator therapy. J Surg Res. 1992; 53: 317–320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Parfrey PS, Griffiths SM, Barrett BJ, et al. Contrast material‐induced renal failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both. A prospective controlled study. N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 143–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kerns SR, Hawkins IF Jr, Sabatelli FW. Current status of carbon dioxide angiography. Radiol Clin North Am. 1995; 33: 15–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bettmann MA, D'Agostino R, Juravsky LI, et al. Carbon dioxide as an angiographic contrast agent. A prospective randomized trial. Invest Radiol. 1994; 29: S45–S46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Hawkins IF Jr, Mladinich CR, Storm B, et al. Short‐term effects of selective renal arterial carbon dioxide administration on the dog kidney. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1994; 5: 149–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Hawkins IF, Caridi JG. Carbon dioxide (CO2) digital subtraction angiography: 26‐year experience at the University of Florida. Eur Radiol. 1998; 8: 391–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Seeger JM, Self S, Harward TR, et al. Carbon dioxide gas as an arterial contrast agent. Ann Surg. 1993; 217: 688–697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Back MR, Caridi JG, Hawkins IF Jr, Seeger JM. Angiography with carbon dioxide (CO2). Surg Clin North Am. 1998; 78: 575–591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Sheppard DG, Moss J, Miller M. Imaging of the portal vein during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures: a comparison of carbon dioxide and iodinated contrast. Clin Radiol. 1998; 53: 448–450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Rees CR, Niblett RL, Lee SP, et al. Use of carbon dioxide as a contrast medium for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1994; 5: 383–386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Caridi JG, Stavropoulos SW, Hawkins IF Jr. Carbon dioxide digital subtraction angiography for renal artery stent placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999; 10: 635–640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Eschelman DJ, Sullivan KL, Bonn J, Gardiner GA Jr. Carbon dioxide as a contrast agent to guide vascular interventional procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171: 1265–1270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Mladinich CR, Akins EW, Weingarten KE, Hawkins IF Jr. Carbon dioxide as an angioscopic medium. Comparison to various methods of saline delivery. Invest Radiol. 1991; 26: 874–878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Yang X, Manninen H, Ji H, Soimakallio S. Influence of carbon dioxide gas perfusion to thermal distribution of sapphire probe. A comparative study with saline. Invest Radiol. 1994; 29: 553–557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Hartnell G. MR angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175: 1188–1189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Jacob AL, Stock KW, Proske M, Steinbrich W. Lower extremity angiography: improved image quality and outflow vessel detection with bilaterally antegrade selective digital subtraction angiography. A blinded prospective intra‐individual comparison with aortic flush digital subtraction angiography. Invest Radiol. 1996; 31: 184–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Gates J, Hartnell GG. Optimized diagnostic angiography in high‐risk patients with severe peripheral vascular disease. Radiographics. 2000; 20: 121–133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Caridi JG, Hawkins IF Jr. CO2 digital subtraction angiography: potential complications and their prevention. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1997; 8: 383–391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Diaz LP, Pabon IP, Garcia JA, de la Cal Lopez MA. Assessment of CO2 arteriography in arterial occlusive disease of the lower extremities. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000; 11: 163–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Rolland Y, Duvauferrier R, Lucas A, et al. Lower limb angiography: a prospective study comparing carbon dioxide with iodinated contrast material in 30 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171: 333–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kerns SR, Hawkins IF Jr. Carbon dioxide digital subtraction angiography: expanding applications and technical evolution. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164: 735–741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]