HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dewald, C. L. Articles by Katz, M. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dewald, C. L. Articles by Katz, M. D.

Vena Cavography with CO₂ versus with Iodinated Contrast Material for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: A Prospective Evaluation¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Los Angeles County–University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif. Received July 16, 1999; revision requested August 25; revision received November 22; accepted December 7. Address correspondence to M.D.K., Department of Radiology, University of Southern California Medical Center–University Hospital, 1500 San Pablo St, Los Angeles, CA 90033 (e-mail: mkatz@hsc.usc.edu).

PURPOSE: To determine whether carbon dioxide (CO₂) vena cavography can safely guide the placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. CO₂ cavograms were obtained and evaluated for IVC diameter, location of renal veins, and presence of thrombus and venous anomalies. If CO₂ cavography was judged to be adequate, an IVC filter was deployed. After filter placement, cavography was performed with iodinated contrast material; these images were compared with the CO₂ cavograms.

RESULTS: Two patients experienced mild side effects related to venous CO₂ injection. Comparison of cavograms obtained with CO₂ and iodinated contrast–enhanced material showed the caval size to be within 3 mm in all 119 patients. In 116 patients (97.5%), CO₂ cavography was judged to be adequate, and in 115 patients, filters were placed. In three (2.5%) patients, it was necessary to perform iodinated contrast–enhanced cavography before filter deployment. All six cases of venous anomaly and 11 (78.6%) of 14 cases of thrombosis were clearly identified with CO₂ cavography. One filter was maldeployed owing to misinterpretation of the CO₂ cavogram.

CONCLUSION: CO₂ cavography is well tolerated, safe, and adequate for identification of the parameters necessary for filter deployment. It is especially valuable in patients with a history of reaction to iodinated contrast material or renal insufficiency.

Index terms: Angiography, contrast media, 982.1249 • Carbon dioxide • Contrast media, comparative studies, 982.1249 • Venae cavae, filters, 982.1267

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S K Morcos Acute serious and fatal reactions to contrast media: our current understanding Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2005; 78(932): 686 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. B. Streiff Vena Caval Filters: A Review for Intensive Care Specialists J Intensive Care Med, March 1, 2003; 18(2): 59 - 79. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Girard, J.-B. Stern, and F. Parent Medical Literature and Vena Cava Filters* : So Far So Weak Chest, September 1, 2002; 122(3): 963 - 967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]