ArticlePloS one2019
Intra-arterial catheter-directed CT angiography for assessment of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of ultra-low contrast dose CT aortography for the management of aortic aneurysmal disease.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Cardiovascular Disease: Beyond Lumen Assessment.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety as well as associated image quality of catheter-directed CT angiography (CCTA) with a low dose of iodine contrast agent compared to intravenous CTA in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).
methodsRetrospective data analysis of 92 patients undergoing EVAR between January 2009 and December 2017 was performed. Patients were divided in two groups; those receiving CTA (n = 59) after intravenous contrast agent application and those receiving CCTA (n = 33) via an intraarterial catheter placed in the descending aorta. Demographic and cardiovascular risk factors as well as renal function parameters before, immediately after and 6-60 months after EVAR were evaluated. As primary endpoint, changes in serum creatinine levels in the two groups were evaluated. Secondary endpoints encompassed complications associated with intraarterial catheter placement. Objective (signal-to-noise ratios) and subjective image quality (5-point Likert scale) were compared.
resultsAmount of contrast medium was significantly lower in CCTA compared to i.v. CTA (23 ± 7 ml vs. 119 ± 15 ml, p<0.0001). Patients undergoing catheter-directed CTA had higher baseline creatinine values compared to the group with intravenous iodine application (1.9 ± 0.6 mg/dl vs. 1.3 ± 0.5 mg/dl; p<0.0001). Follow-up serum creatinine levels however did not show significant alterations between the two groups (1.9 ± 0.4 mg/dl vs. 1.3 ± 0.5 mg/dl). No major complications were detected in the CCTA group. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was comparable between i.v. CTA and CCTA (8.5 ± 4.6 vs. 7.7 ± 4.0; p = 0.37) and subjective image similarly revealed no differences with a good interobserver agreement (ICC = 0.647).
conclusionsCatheter-directed CTA is safe and provides comparable image quality with a substantial retrenchment of the needed amount of iodine-based contrast medium. However, no benefit of the reduced contrast medium protocol with respect to renal function was observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.