Factors affecting exposure parameters during diagnostic coronary catheterization
1
Citation
0
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Keywords:
Dose area product
Cardiac catheterization
Interventional cardiology
Dose area product
Interventional cardiology
Lead apron
Interventional radiology
Cardiac catheterization
Cite
Citations (81)
Radiation risk allied to invasive cardiology is relatively high, and protecting both patients and cardiologists is necessary. The aim of this review is to discuss how to better protect patients and cardiologists against radiation exposure. We performed a global search on PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus databases via keywords of "interventional cardiologist", "patient", "radiation", and "exposure" and then performed an overview of the main strategies for risk reduction among interventional cardiologists and exposed patients. The 1st line for protection is awareness of both radiation risk factors and exposure doses and how to manage and minimize exposure levels. In conclusion, radiation-attenuating techniques can effectively reduce occupational/treatment radiation exposure to both operators and patients in cardiology interventions.
Interventional cardiology
Cite
Citations (13)
The purpose of this study was to measure radiation exposure levels in children undergoing cardiac catheterization. This information was used to assess methods of reducing exposure and to characterize total exposures.The radiation exposure area product was determined for a total of 175 patients during three study intervals over 10 years. Examinations included biplane fluoroscopy and cineangiography for the diagnosis and treatment of congenital heart disease.The use of pulsed progressive fluoroscopy was found to reduce patients' fluoroscopic exposure rates by approximately 40% as compared with interlaced mode fluoroscopy. Combining exposures from the frontal and lateral projections, the median fluoroscopic time for diagnostic procedures was 21 min and the median time for cineangiography was 42 sec. Median total exposure area product was 2063 R-cm2 with cineangiography accounting for 44% of the total exposure. For an estimated X-ray beam entrance area of 50-100 cm2, the median total entrance exposure was in the range of 20-40 R. Fluoroscopy times for interventional procedures were found to be 1.5 to 2.5 times longer than for diagnostic procedures, with total exposures approximately three times higher.This study suggests that pulsed progressive fluoroscopy is an effective method of reducing radiation exposure in children undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Cineangiography
Dose area product
Cardiac catheterization
Cite
Citations (65)
Radiation is a necessary evil in Coronary Angiogram. The Interventional Cardiology procedure provides huge benefit to the patient but at the cost of radiation. There is evidence of cumulative effect of radiation. Therefore it is essential to keep the radiation dose as minimum as possible.The aim of this study is to find out radiation exposed to the patient undergoing diagnostic coronary angiogram.A retrospective study was done. Those patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiogram were selected for the study. There were total of 166 patients. Radiation exposure in terms of fluoroscopy time in minute and dose area product (DAP) in Gy.cm2 was recorded.Out 166 patients 92 were male and 74 female. Age range was from 39 to 79 years with mean age 58.13±9.14. Amount of contrast used was in range of 30 to 100 ml with mean of 45.54±14.06. Range of fluoroscopy time was 2.60 to 37.00 minutes with mean 11.38±6.80. Mean fluoroscopy time in male was 10.92±5.82 minutes and in females it was 11.92±7.68 minutes, with p 0.331. The range of DAP was 11.00 Gy.cm2 to 106.00 Gy.cm2 with mean 40.73±23.58 Gy.cm2. The mean DAP in male and female was 38.77±23.26 Gy.cm2 and 43.16±23.90 Gy.cm2 respectively with p 0.234.From this study we can conclude that the radiation exposure to our patient undergoing coronary angiogram is similar to the international values in terms DAP but more in terms of fluoroscopy time. When males and females compared there is no difference.
Coronary angiogram
Cite
Citations (2)
Endovascular surgery is minimally invasive, but the radiation exposure can be problematic. There is no report assessing whether radiation exposure can be reduced by using a low pulse rate during carotid artery stenting (CAS). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether reducing the pulse rate from 7.5 to 4 frames per second (f/s) can reduce the radiation exposure while maintaining safety during CAS procedure.We retrospectively reviewed the radiation data and clinical features of all 100 patients who underwent CAS between 2014 and 2019. We changed the pulse rate from 7.5 to 4 f/s in 2017. The fluoroscopic time (FT), dose area product (DAP), and total air kerma (AK) were collected. Statistical analyses were performed between the pulse rate and clinical outcomes, including radiation exposure.
Dose area product
Kerma
Pulse rate
Cite
Citations (5)
Objective:To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)via the radial artery or femoral artery.Methods:One hundred and fifty-seven cases undergoing coronary angiography(CAG)and/or PCI were divided into two groups:radial approach group(98 cases)and femoral approach group(59 cases).The rates of success and complication were observed and compared statistically.Results:The success rate of CAG in the radial artery group and femoral artery group was 95.92% and 98.31%,respectively;and the success rate of PCI in the radial approach group and the femoral approach group was 94.87% and 96.15%,respectively(P0.05);the incidence of local complication in the radial approach group was significantly lower than that in the femoral approach group(5.1% vs 27.1% and 7.7% vs 46.2%)(P0.01).Conclusions:PCI via the radial artery or the femoral artery has a similar success rate,but PCI via the radial artery has a lower incidence of local complication.
Cite
Citations (1)
Background: To evaluate the safety of radial versus femoral artery approach in routine coronary angiography (CAG) practice.Methods: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients in Ibrahim Cardiac Hospital & Research Institute, a tertiary care centre, who underwent diagnostic CAG over a period of 12 months. Procedure duration was calculated as time from initiation of local anesthesia to completion of the procedure. Contrast volume and fluoroscopy time were recorded.Results: 3346 patients who underwent a diagnostic CAG were included in this study. The radial approach was used in 3030 patients (90.5%) and the femoral approach in 316 patients (9.5%). As the radial group was disproportionately large compared to femoral group the size of the radial group was reduced to 1010 using a systematic sampling procedure, where every 3rd patient of radial group was chosen.Fluoroscopy and procedural times were not significantly different (3.41±1.14 vs. 3.85±1.43 min, p=0.314 & 11.87±4.61 vs. 13.74±6.33 min, p=0.180, respectively) comparing the radial and femoral approaches. While contrast utilization during the procedure was significantly lower in the radial than the femoral approach (57.60±22.42 vs. 69.52±24.30 mL respectively, p=0.030).Conclusion: Transradial coronary angiography can be safely performed as the transfemoral approach.Bangladesh Heart Journal 2015; 30(2) : 68-73
Cite
Citations (2)
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)through different approaches of radial artery or femoral artery.Methods 356 hospitalized patients with coronary artery disease were selected from October 2010 to December 2012,in which 198 cases through radial artery approach undergoing PCI as the radial group,158 cases through femoral artery approach undergoing PCI as a femoral group.The operation time,PCI success rate,peripheral vascular complications and the incidence of cardiovascular events of two groups were observed.Results The operative time,PCI success rate of two groups were compared,the difference was not statistically significant(P0.05); However,the peripheral vascular complication rate of radial group(3.5%) was lower than that of femoral group(15.8%).Conclusion The clinical efficacy are similar for PCI through radial artery approach or through femoral artery approach,but through radial artery approach has low complication rate,is worthy of clinical popularization and application.
Cite
Citations (0)
Dose area product
Cardiac catheterization
Radiation monitoring
Cite
Citations (29)
Background: Many clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit of trans-radial access (TRA) over trans-femoral access (TFA) in reducing mortality and bleeding events, but there is some concern about radiation exposure with radial access. Objective: To assess the difference in radiation exposure between radial and femoral approach as measured by dose-area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in patients aged 15 years and above who underwent invasive percutaneous coronary angiography at Ramathibodi Hospital between December 2019 and December 2020. Exclusion criteria included previous coronary artery bypass graft, unstable hemodynamic status during procedure, and changing the access site or using access sites other than femoral or radial arteries. Demographic data of patients was collected through medical records. DAP and fluoroscopy time of patients with radial and femoral approach were evaluated. Results: Of 427 patients (49.4% male wtih mean age of 65.7 years), 245 (57.4%) patients underwent TFA. There was no significant difference in the median DAP between the radial and femoral approach (radial 1838 mGy.cm2 vs femoral 1690.7 mGy.cm2, P = .31). However, the fluoroscopy time was significantly higher in radial approach group (radial 4.6 min vs femoral 3.3 min, P < .001). Conclusions: The radiation exposure was not significantly different between trans-radial and trans-femoral coronary angiography.
Dose area product
Interventional cardiology
Cite
Citations (0)