Dataset Information

Effectiveness of fluorography versus cineangiography at reducing radiation exposure during diagnostic coronary angiography.

ABSTRACT: Coronary angiography is the gold standard for defining obstructive coronary disease. However, radiation exposure remains an unwanted hazard. Patients referred for coronary angiography with abdominal circumference<45 inches and glomerular filtration rate>60 ml/min were randomized to the fluorography (n=25) or cineangiography (n=25) group. Patients in the fluorography group underwent coronary angiography using retrospectively stored fluorography with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed for better resolution per operator's discretion. Patients in the cineangiography group underwent coronary angiography using routine cineangiography. The primary end point was patient radiation exposure measured by radiochromic film. Secondary end points included the radiation output measurement of kerma-area product and air kerma at the interventional reference point (Ka,r) and operator radiation exposure measured by a dosimeter. Patient radiation exposure (158.2 mGy [76.5 to 210.2] vs 272.5 mGy [163.3 to 314.0], p=0.001), kerma-area product (1,323 ?Gy·m2 [826 to 1,765] vs 3,451 ?Gy·m2 [2,464 to 4,818], p<0.001), and Ka,r (175 mGy [112 to 252] vs 558 mGy [313 to 621], p<0.001) were significantly lower in the fluorography compared with cineangiography group (42%, 62%, and 69% relative reduction, respectively). Operator radiation exposure trended in the same direction, although statistically nonsignificant (fluorography 2.35 ?Gy [1.24 to 6.30] vs cineangiography 5.03 ?Gy [2.48 to 7.80], p=0.059). In conclusion, the use of fluorography in a select group of patients during coronary angiography, with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed, was efficacious at reducing patient radiation exposure.

SUBMITTER: Shah B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3959232 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of fluorography versus cineangiography at reducing radiation exposure during diagnostic coronary angiography.

Shah Binita B Mai Xingchen X Tummala Lakshmi L Kliger Chad C Bangalore Sripal S Miller Louis H LH Sedlis Steven P SP Feit Frederick F Liou Michael M Attubato Michael M Coppola John J Slater James J

The American journal of cardiology 20140115 7

Coronary angiography is the gold standard for defining obstructive coronary disease. However, radiation exposure remains an unwanted hazard. Patients referred for coronary angiography with abdominal circumference<45 inches and glomerular filtration rate>60 ml/min were randomized to the fluorography (n=25) or cineangiography (n=25) group. Patients in the fluorography group underwent coronary angiography using retrospectively stored fluorography with repeat injection under cineangiography only whe ...[more]

PMID: 24513469

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).Search methodsWe searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.Main resultsWe identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsTransradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

Project description:ObjectivesCardiac computed tomography (CT) is essential in diagnosing coronary heart disease. However, a disadvantage is the associated radiation exposure to the patient which depends in part on the scan range. This study aimed to develop a deep neural network to optimize the delimitation of scan ranges in CT localizers to reduce the radiation dose.MethodsOn a retrospective training cohort of 1507 CT localizers randomly selected from calcium scoring and angiography scans and acquired between 2010 and 2017, optimized scan ranges were delimited by two radiologists in consensus. A neural network was trained to reproduce the scan ranges and was tested on two randomly selected and independent validation cohorts: an internal cohort of 233 CT localizers (January 2018-June 2020) and an external cohort from a nearby hospital of 298 CT localizers (July 2020-December 2020). Localizers where a bypass surgery was visible were excluded. The effective radiation dose to the patient was simulated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Scan ranges of radiographers, radiologists, and the network were compared using an equivalence test; likewise, the reduction in effective dose was tested using a superior test.ResultsThe network replicated the radiologists' scan ranges with a Dice score of 96.5 ± 0.02 (p < 0.001, indicating equivalence). The generated scan ranges resulted in an effective dose reduction of 10.0% (p = 0.002) in the internal cohort and 12.6% (p < 0.001) in the external cohort compared to the scan ranges delimited by radiographers in clinical routine.ConclusionsAutomatic delimitation of the scan range can result in a radiation dose reduction to the patient.Clinical relevance statementFully automated delimitation of the scan range using a deep neural network enables a significant reduction in radiation exposure during CT coronary angiography compared to manual examination planning. It can also reduce the workload of the radiographers.Key points• Scan range delimitation for coronary computed tomography angiography could be performed with high accuracy by a deep neural network. • Automated scan ranges showed a high agreement of 96.5% with the scan ranges of radiologists. • Using a Monte Carlo simulation, automated scan ranges reduced the effective dose to the patient by up to 12.6% (0.9 mSv) compared to the scan ranges of radiographers in clinical routine.

Project description:ObjectiveBecause there is evidence for a clinical benefit of using coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography instead of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), we ascertained if patient satisfaction could represent an important barrier to implementation of coronary CT in clinical practice.Materials and methodsA total of 329 patients with suspected CAD and clinical indication for ICA were randomly assigned to undergo either CT or ICA for guiding treatment. Satisfaction for both groups was assessed by patient questionnaire completed twice, ≥24 h after CT or ICA, and at follow-up after a median of 3.7 years. Assessment included preparation, concern, comfort, helplessness, pain, willingness to undergo tests again, overall satisfaction, and preference. Pearson's chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used.ResultsOverall, 91% of patients undergoing CT (152/167) and 86% undergoing ICA completed assessment (140/162, p = 0.19). Patients reported being significantly better prepared for CT, less concerned about the test, and felt less helpless than during ICA (all: p < 0.001). Subjective pain (horizontal nonmarked visual analogue scale) was significantly lower for CT (6.9 ± 14.7) than for ICA (17.1 ± 22.7; p < 0.001). At follow-up, significantly more patients in the CT group reported very good satisfaction with communication of findings compared with the ICA group (p < 0.001) and 92% would recommend the institution to someone referred for the same examination.ConclusionsResults from our single-center randomized study show very good satisfaction with coronary CT compared to ICA. Thus, superior acceptance of CT should be considered in shared decision-making.Clinical relevance statementThis evaluation of patient satisfaction in a randomized study shows that patients' preference is in line with the clinical benefit provided by CT and also suggests to prefer a CT-first strategy in suspected coronary artery disease.Key points• Subjective pain was significantly lower for coronary CT angiography than for invasive coronary angiography and patients felt better prepared and less concerned about CT. • Patients were overall more satisfied with coronary CT angiography than invasive coronary angiography in a randomized controlled trial. • After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, more patients in the CT group indicated very good satisfaction with the communication of findings and with the examination itself.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of fluorography versus cineangiography at reducing radiation exposure during diagnostic coronary angiography.

Publications

Effectiveness of fluorography versus cineangiography at reducing radiation exposure during diagnostic coronary angiography.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets