Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40968298›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Safety and evidence of CO

Robert P Wawer Matos Reimer, Peter Reimer, Andreas H Mahnken, Marie-France Bellin, Michele Bertolotto, Torkel Brismar, Jean-Michel Correas, Katerina Deike-Hofmann, Ilona A Dekkers, Remy W F Geenen and 10 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Robert P Wawer Matos Reimer *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Peter Reimer *Department of Radiology, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Andreas H MahnkenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany. mahnken@med.uni-marburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8077-9306
Marie-France BellinDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Bicêtre, University Paris Saclay, BioMaps, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Michele BertolottoDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Torkel BrismarUnit of Radiology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Department of Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jean-Michel CorreasUniversité de Paris, AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Necker, DMU Imagina, Service de Radiologie, Paris, France.
Katerina Deike-HofmannClinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Clinic Bonn, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, DZNE, Bonn, Germany.
Ilona A DekkersDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Remy W F GeenenDepartment of Radiology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Gertraud Heinz-PeerDepartment of Radiology, Landesklinikum St Pölten, St Pölten, Austria.
Carlo A MallioFondazione Policlinico and Research Unit Radiology, Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Roma, Italy.
Aart J van der MolenDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Carlo C QuattrocchiCentre for Medical Sciences CISMed, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Alexander RadbruchClinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Clinic Bonn, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, DZNE, Bonn, Germany.
Giles RoditiDepartment of Radiology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Laura RomaniniDepartment of Radiology, ASST Cremona, Cremona, Italy.
Carmen SebastiàDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Fulvio StaculDepartment of Radiology, Ospedale Maggiore, Trieste, Italy.
Olivier ClementUniversité de Paris, AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, DMU Imagina, Service de Radiologie, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review aims to analyse the different safety aspects and evidence of CO MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, focusing on relevant literature centred around clinical questions by the Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.

resultsEleven studies encompassing meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, and comparative studies were included. The review found that CO

conclusionCO KEY POINTS: Question What safety aspects and evidence support CO2 use as a contrast agent in vascular applications instead of ICM? Findings CO2 angiography is safe when considering specific safety measures and clinical applications; evidence on the reduction of ICM volume and CA-AKI is limited. Clinical relevance CO2 angiography offers an alternative to ICM, especially in CA-AKI risk patients. More large-scale, multicentre RCTs are required to strengthen the evidence and to investigate other risk factors due to a high residual risk of CA-AKI when using CO2 angiography.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAngiographyCarbon DioxideContrast MediaIodineHumansCarbon DioxideContrast MediaIodineAcute kidney injuryAngiographyCarbon dioxideContrast mediaSafety

Identifiers

PMID40968298
PMCPMC12634814

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.