SynthesisBMC surgery2025
CO₂ angiography offers clinical advantages over iodinated contrast in endovascular aneurysm repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) versus iodinated contrast media (ICM) in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), an area where comprehensive combined imaging and clinical assessments have yet to be explored.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from their inception to May 2025, specifically targeting studies published since 2012 that compared contrast media in EVAR. Outcome measures-including operative time, fluoroscopy time, procedural success (defined as postoperative restoration of blood flow), renal function, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and type II endoleak-were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model.
resultsCompared with ICM, CO₂ angiography showed no significant differences in procedural success or operative time (both P > 0.05), while fluoroscopy duration was slightly longer (WMD = 2.75, P < 0.001). CO₂ angiography was associated with markedly reduced ICM exposure (WMD = - 57.24, P < 0.05) and showed potential renal benefits, including higher eGFR (WMD = 0.42, P < 0.001) and lower serum creatinine at 1 month (WMD = - 0.09, P = 0.04). The incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury was also lower in the CO₂ group (1.3% vs. 2.8%; OR = 0.43, P = 0.05). Moreover, CO₂ angiography showed a reduced incidence of type II endoleaks (OR = 0.57, P = 0.04), although further confirmation in larger prospective studies is warranted.
conclusionBased mainly on observational data with limited prospective studies, CO₂ angiography in EVAR shows comparable intra-procedural visualization and technical success to ICM. Some studies suggest it may reduce perioperative AKI risk or provide short-term renal protection. However, current evidence is insufficient to establish its equivalence across all patient populations. Therefore, its use should be individualized based on factors like renal function and anatomy or considered alongside low-dose ICM.
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.