Accuracy and safety of carbon dioxide inferior vena cavography.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of carbon dioxide compared to iodinated contrast material for determining inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter prior to filter placement, and to assess the safety of CO2 when used for this purpose.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing inferior vena cavography prior to filter placement were prospectively evaluated with use of both CO2 and iodinated contrast material. The diameter of the IVC was measured and compared in the same four locations in each patient for both agents. The diameter was corrected for magnification and pin-cushion distortion. The ability of CO2 to correctly classify IVC diameter as < or =28 mm or >28 mm, based on the IVC diameter with iodinated contrast material, was determined. A consensus panel assessed renal vein visualization with CO2 and iodinated contrast material. Blood pressure and arterial oxygen saturation were measured immediately before and after CO2 injection.

RESULTS: Among 30 patients, there was no significant difference in the measured diameter of the IVC with CO2 versus iodinated contrast material after correction for magnification and pin-cushion distortion. One of 30 patients (3.3%) in this study was misclassified as having an IVC < or =28 mm with CO2 when, in fact, the IVC diameter was >28 mm based on iodinated contrast material. This could be clinically significant for certain IVC filters. Forty-seven percent of renal veins identified on contrast venography were identified by CO2 vena cavography. There was no significant difference in the blood pressure or oxygen saturation values measured before and after CO2 injection. However, one patient with pulmonary artery hypertension did experience transient, symptomatic hypotension after CO2 injection.

CONCLUSIONS: In most patients, CO2 vena cavography accurately evaluated IVC diameter prior to filter placement. In 3.3% of patients, the discrepancy in measurements between CO2 and iodinated contrast material could be clinically significant, depending on the type of filter placed. CO2 was less accurate than iodinated contrast material in identifying renal veins. Although CO2 vena cavography is safe in the majority of patients, it should be used with caution in patients with pulmonary hypertension.