Contrast alternatives for iodinated contrast allergy and renal dysfunction: Options and limitations

Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
Journal of vascular surgery: official publication, the Society for Vascular Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American Chapter (Impact Factor: 3.02). 12/2012; 57(2). DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.10.009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Diagnostic angiography and vascular interventions make routine use of iodinated contrast material (ICM). Patients with renal disease or contrast allergy pose limitations on the use of ICM. In such cases, alternative contrast media may be used to carry out the procedure. Current alternatives include carbon dioxide, gadolinium, and dilute ICM. Each of these alternatives has its own unique features and limitations. In the present review article, the current alternatives to ICM are explored, with a focus on the applications and restrictions of each.

12 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Iodinated contrast during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is used with caution in patients with chronic kidney disease. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging using nonnephrotoxic sulphur hexafluoride microbubble contrast is a novel imaging modality that accurately identifies and characterizes endoleaks during EVAR follow-up. We report our initial experience of using three-dimensional (3D) CEUS imaging intraoperatively as completion imaging after endograft deployment. Our aim was to compare intraoperative 3D CEUS against uniplanar angiography in the detection of endoleak, stent deformity, and renal artery perfusion during EVAR. Methods The study enrolled 20 patients undergoing elective conventional infrarenal EVAR, after which a completion angiogram was performed and the presence of endoleak, renal artery perfusion, or device deformity were recorded. With the patient still under anesthetic, a vascular scientist blinded to angiographic findings performed 3D CEUS and reported on the same parameters. Results Three endoleaks, one type I and two type II, were detected on uniplanar angiography and 13 endoleaks, 11 type II and two type I, were found using 3D CEUS imaging. Of note, one of these type I endoleaks was not seen on angiography, and this patient underwent balloon moulding of the neck with resolution of the endoleak on repeat imaging. Of the 11 type II endoleaks seen with 3D CEUS imaging, the inflow vessel was identified in nine cases. No graft deformity or limb kinking was seen in any patient. Both renal arteries could be visualized in 10 patients, whereas the target renal artery was seen in 11 patients. In the remaining patients, the renal arteries could not be visualized, mainly due to intra-abdominal gas or patient body habitus. Conclusions 3D CEUS imaging detected endoleaks not seen on uniplanar digital subtraction angiography, including a clinically important type I endoleak, and was also more sensitive than 2D CEUS imaging for the detection of the source of endoleak. This technology has the potential to supplement or replace digital subtraction angiography for completion imaging to reduce the use of x-ray contrast. Intraoperative 3D CEUS has been applied to allow safe EVAR with ultralow or no iodinated contrast usage in selected cases, without compromising completion imaging.
    Journal of Vascular Surgery 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.08.095 · 3.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Severe chronic kidney disease is a major limitation for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study is to assess the safety and accuracy of fusion imaging, when performing EVAR in the absence of pre- and intra-operative contrast agents. Methods From October 2013 to February 2014, every patient requiring EVAR and presenting with severe chronic renal impairment underwent a specific pre-operative imaging assessment, based on a non-enhanced CT scan. Centrelines were manually extracted and key points were placed at the landing zones. In house software makes it possible to artificially enhance the contrast between vascular structures and the surrounding tissue, by increasing the values attributed to the vascular structure voxels (500 Hounsfield units). EVAR was performed in a hybrid room (Zeego, Siemens), and the artificially enhanced CT scan was used for the construction of fusion imaging. The 3D vascular volume, together with the centrelines and key points, was overlaid onto the 2D live fluoroscopic image. Results Six patients (mean age 77.1 years) were treated by EVAR (5 abdominal aneurysms and 1 thoracic aneurysm), using fusion imaging without a contrast agent. The median pre-operative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 17.5 mL/min/1.73 m2. No contrast was used during the procedure. No intra-operative endoleak was observed on the duplex scan. No deterioration was observed in the eGFR at 1 week (eGFR = 21.7, p =.49), nor at 1 month follow up (eGFR = 21, p =.28). The stent graft positioning error was assessed in terms of the difference between the effective and planned landing zones, measured on pre- and post-operative CT scans. The mean error was 1.3 mm at the proximal landing zone, and 6.5 mm at the distal landing zone. Conclusion EVAR without the use of pre-operative and intra-operative contrast agents appears to be safe and accurate for patients with severe chronic kidney disease.
    European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 01/2015; 49(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.12.003 · 2.49 Impact Factor


12 Reads
Available from