Chronic kidney disease is a common comorbidity in patients with peripheral artery disease. We investigated the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO2) as supplemental contrast agent to decrease contrast volume during fluoroscopy-guided peripheral vascular procedures in routine angiological practice. We analyzed 191 consecutive interventions of the lower extremity in claudicants and critical limb ischemia (CLI) that were performed with iodinated contrast media (ICM) alone (n = 154) or with the aided or exclusive use of CO2 (n = 37). The technical success rate, total irradiation, and intervention time were not significantly different between ICM and CO2. No severe procedure-related complications occurred. The contrast volume was lower in CO2 than in ICM. Although kidney function, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate was lower in CO2 at baseline, the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was lower in CO2 compared to ICM. These data support CO2 as an alternative supplemental contrast agent that can be applied safely and efficiently to lower contrast volume during peripheral vascular interventions preventing kidney dysfunction even in patients with disease of the popliteal artery and below the knee and CLI.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Angiology
#782
of 913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,892
of 377,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Angiology
#359
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 913 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
