A.V. MAKSIMOV^1,2, E.Sh. MAKARIMOV¹, V.V. GLINKIN¹, F.K. FEYSKHANOV¹

¹Republican Clinical Hospital of the MH of RT, 138 Orenburgskiy Trakt, Kazan, Russian Federation, 420064

²Kazan State Medical Academy, 36 Butlerov St., Kazan, Russian Federation, 420012

Maksimov A.V. — D. Med. Sc., Head of the Vascular Surgery Department № 1, Associate Professor of the Department of Cardiology, Endovascular and Cardiovascular Surgery, tel. +7-917-877-16-65, e-mail: [email protected]

Makarimov E.S. — Surgeon of the Roentgenosurgical Diagnostics and Treatment Department, tel. +7-917-887-01-01, e-mail: [email protected]

Glinkin V.V. — Head of the Roentgenosurgical Diagnostics and Treatment Department, tel. +7-937-613-13-83, e-mail: [email protected]

Feyskhanov A.K. — Vascular Surgeon of the Vascular Surgery Department № 1, tel. +7-987-296-06-42, e-mail: [email protected]

To provide endovascular interventions on venous and arterial systems in modern hospitals carbon dioxide is safely used. The main advantage of carbon dioxide is its ability to safely use in patients with high risk of contrast induced nephropathy. Here is the first clinical experience of carbon dioxide successful application in the Republican Clinical Hospital. Results of CO₂-angiography performed using a system of CO₂ Angioset by OptiMED in patients with allergy to iodinated contrast agents, in patients on hemodialysis with residual renal function and in patients with chronic renal failure were demonstrated.

Key words: carbon dioxide, digital subtraction angiography, contrast-induced nephropathy.

 

 

REFERENCES

1. Bendib M., Tourni M., Boudjellab A. CO₂-angiography and enlarged CO₂-angiography in cardiology. Ann Radiol (Paris). 1977, vol. 20, pp. 673-686.
2. Hipona F.A., Ferris E.J., Pick R. Capnocavaography: a new technique for examination of the inferior vena cava. Radiology, 1969, vol. 92, pp. 606-609.
3. Hawkins I.F., Caridi J.G. Carbon dioxide (CO2) digital subtraction angiography: 26 year experience at the University of Florida. Eur Radiol, 1998, vol. 8(3), pp. 391-402.
4. Roussos C., Koutsoukou A. Respiratory failure. Eur Respir J, 2003, vol. 22(47), pp. 3-14.
5. Lieberman P.L., Seigle R.L. Reactions to radiocontrast material. Р. anaphylactoid events in radiology. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol, 1999, vol. 17(4), pp. 469-496.
6. Bartholomew B.A., Harjai K.J., Dukkipati S. Impact of nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention and a method for risk stratification. Am J Cardiol, 2004, vol. 93(12), pp. 1515-1519.
7. Nash K., Hafeez A., Hou S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis, 2002, vol. 39(5), pp. 930-936.
8. Heye S., Maleux G., Marchal G.J. Upper-extremity venography, Р. CO2 versus iodinated contrast media. Radiology. 2006, vol. 241(1), pp. 291-297.
9. Rees C.R., Niblettt R.L., Lee S.P. et al. Use of carbon dioxide as a contrast medium for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1994, vol. 5(2), pp. 383-386.
10. Hawkins I.F., Caridi J.G., Wiechman B.N., et al. Carbon dioxide (CO2) digital subtraction angiography in trauma patients. Semin Intervent Radiol, 1997, vol. 14, pp. 175-180.
11. Cho K.J., Hawkins I.F. CO₂ as a venous contrast agent: safety and tolerance. In: Carbon Dioxide Angiography: Principles, Techniques and Practices. New York. Informa Healthcare, 2007, pp. 37-44.