OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical utility of images acquired from rotational coronary angiographic (RA) acquisitions compared to standard "fixed" coronary angiography (SA). BACKGROUND: RA is a novel angiographic modality that has been enabled by new gantry systems that allow calibrated automatic angiographic rotations and has been shown to reduce radiation and contrast exposure compared to SA. RA provides a dynamic multiple-angle perspective of the coronaries during a single contrast injection. METHODS: The screening adequacy, lesion assessment, and a quantitative coronary analysis (QCA) of both SA and RA were compared by independent blinded review in 100 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: SA and RA recognize a similar total number of lesions (P = 0.61). The qualitative assessment of lesion characteristics and severity between modalities was comparable and lead to similar clinical decisions. Visualization of several vessel segments (diagonal, distal RCA, postero-lateral branches and posterior-descending) was superior with RA when compared to SA (P < 0.05). A QCA comparison (MLD, MLA, LL, % DS) revealed no difference between SA and RA. The volume of contrast (23.5 +/- 3.1 mL vs. 39.4 +/- 4.1; P = 0.0001), total radiation exposure (27.1 +/- 4 vs. 32.1 +/- 3.8 Gycm(2); P = 0.002) and image acquisition time (54.3 +/- 36.8 vs. 77.67 +/- 49.64 sec; P = 0.003) all favored RA. CONCLUSION: Coronary lesion assessment, coronary screening adequacy, and QCA evaluations are comparable in SA and RA acquisition modalities in the diagnosis of CAD however RA decreases contrast volume, image acquisition time, and radiation exposure.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical utility of images acquired from rotational coronary angiographic (RA) acquisitions compared to standard "fixed" coronary angiography (SA). BACKGROUND:RA is a novel angiographic modality that has been enabled by new gantry systems that allow calibrated automatic angiographic rotations and has been shown to reduce radiation and contrast exposure compared to SA. RA provides a dynamic multiple-angle perspective of the coronaries during a single contrast injection. METHODS: The screening adequacy, lesion assessment, and a quantitative coronary analysis (QCA) of both SA and RA were compared by independent blinded review in 100 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS:SA and RA recognize a similar total number of lesions (P = 0.61). The qualitative assessment of lesion characteristics and severity between modalities was comparable and lead to similar clinical decisions. Visualization of several vessel segments (diagonal, distal RCA, postero-lateral branches and posterior-descending) was superior with RA when compared to SA (P < 0.05). A QCA comparison (MLD, MLA, LL, % DS) revealed no difference between SA and RA. The volume of contrast (23.5 +/- 3.1 mL vs. 39.4 +/- 4.1; P = 0.0001), total radiation exposure (27.1 +/- 4 vs. 32.1 +/- 3.8 Gycm(2); P = 0.002) and image acquisition time (54.3 +/- 36.8 vs. 77.67 +/- 49.64 sec; P = 0.003) all favored RA. CONCLUSION: Coronary lesion assessment, coronary screening adequacy, and QCA evaluations are comparable in SA and RA acquisition modalities in the diagnosis of CAD however RA decreases contrast volume, image acquisition time, and radiation exposure.
Authors: Osamah Aldoss; Brian M Fonseca; Uyen T Truong; John Bracken; Jeffrey R Darst; Ruixin Guo; Tamekia L Jones; Thomas E Fagan Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Todd M Gudausky; Andrew N Pelech; Gail Stendahl; Kathryn Tillman; Judy Mattice; Stuart Berger; Steven Zangwill Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 1.655