Literature DB >> 20019175

Impact of biplane versus single-plane imaging on radiation dose, contrast load and procedural time in coronary angioplasty.

V Sadick1, W Reed, L Collins, N Sadick, R Heard, J Robinson.   

Abstract

Coronary angioplasties can be performed with either single-plane or biplane imaging techniques. The aim of this study was to determine whether biplane imaging, in comparison to single-plane imaging, reduces radiation dose and contrast load and shortens procedural time during (i) primary and elective coronary angioplasty procedures, (ii) angioplasty to the main vascular territories and (iii) procedures performed by operators with various levels of experience. This prospective observational study included a total of 504 primary and elective single-vessel coronary angioplasty procedures utilising either biplane or single-plane imaging. Radiographic and clinical parameters were collected from clinical reports and examination protocols. Radiation dose was measured by a dose-area-product (DAP) meter intrinsic to the angiography system. Our results showed that biplane imaging delivered a significantly greater radiation dose (181.4+/-121.0 Gycm(2)) than single-plane imaging (133.6+/-92.8 Gycm(2), p<0.0001). The difference was independent of case type (primary or elective) (p = 0.862), vascular territory (p = 0.519) and operator experience (p = 0.903). No significant difference was found in contrast load between biplane (166.8+/-62.9 ml) and single-plane imaging (176.8+/-66.0 ml) (p = 0.302). This non-significant difference was independent of case type (p = 0.551), vascular territory (p = 0.308) and operator experience (p = 0.304). Procedures performed with biplane imaging were significantly longer (55.3+/-27.8 min) than those with single-plane (48.9+/-24.2 min, p = 0.010) and, similarly, were not dependent on case type (p = 0.226), vascular territory (p = 0.642) or operator experience (p = 0.094). Biplane imaging resulted in a greater radiation dose and a longer procedural time and delivered a non-significant reduction in contrast load than single-plane imaging. These findings did not support the commonly perceived advantages of using biplane imaging in single-vessel coronary interventional procedures.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20019175      PMCID: PMC3473578          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/21696839

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  39 in total

1.  Skin dose and dose-area product values for interventional cardiology procedures.

Authors:  E Vano; L Gonzalez; J I Ten; J M Fernandez; E Guibelalde; C Macaya
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on cardiac catheterization laboratory standards. A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents.

Authors:  T M Bashore; E R Bates; P B Berger; D A Clark; J T Cusma; G J Dehmer; M J Kern; W K Laskey; M P O'Laughlin; S Oesterle; J J Popma; R A O'Rourke; J Abrams; E R Bates; B R Brodie; P S Douglas; G Gregoratos; M A Hlatky; J S Hochman; S Kaul; C M Tracy; D D Waters; W L Winters
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Reference levels in PTCA as a function of procedure complexity.

Authors:  A Peterzol; E Quai; R Padovani; G Bernardi; C J Kotre; A Dowling
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2006-02-03       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  Patient dose values in a dedicated Greek cardiac centre.

Authors:  V Tsapaki; S Kottou; E Vano; K Faulkner; J Giannouleas; R Padovani; E Kyrozi; M Koutelou; E Vardalaki; V Neofotistou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Does cardiologist- or radiographer-operated fluoroscopy and image acquisition influence optimization of patient radiation exposure during routine coronary angiography?

Authors:  W R Arthur; J Dhawan; M S Norell; A J Hunter; A L Clark
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  The dependence of patient dose on factors relating to the technique and complexity of Interventional Cardiology procedures.

Authors:  Miltiadis G Delichas; Kyriakos Psarrakos; Konstantinos Hatziioannou; Georgios Giannoglou; Elisabeth Molyvda-Athanasopoulou; Emmanouil Papanastassiou; Anastasios Sioundas
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2005 October - December       Impact factor: 2.685

Review 7.  Prevention and treatment of contrast-induced nephropathy.

Authors:  Mohammed Al-Ghonaim; Neesh Pannu
Journal:  Tech Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2006-06

8.  An investigation into patient and staff doses from X-ray angiography during coronary interventional procedures.

Authors:  O W E Morrish; K E Goldstone
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Effective techniques for reduction of radiation dosage to patients undergoing invasive cardiac procedures.

Authors:  E Kuon; C Glaser; J B Dahm
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Are new technologies always reducing patient doses in cardiac procedures?

Authors:  A Trianni; G Bernardi; R Padovani
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2006-02-03       Impact factor: 0.972

View more
  8 in total

1.  Imaging: Safety of spinal angiography.

Authors:  Michael C Hurley; Timothy J Carroll
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 42.937

2.  Patient radiation dose reduction using an X-ray imaging noise reduction technology for cardiac angiography and intervention.

Authors:  Shigeru Nakamura; Tomoko Kobayashi; Atsushi Funatsu; Tadahisa Okada; Maria Mauti; Yuki Waizumi; Shinichi Yamada
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  An Automatic 3-D Reconstruction of Coronary Arteries by Stereopsis.

Authors:  Mufit Cetin; Ali Iskurt
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  Optimisation of coronary angiography exposures requires a multifactorial approach and careful procedural definition.

Authors:  A Lin; P Brennan; N Sadick; P Kovoor; S Lewis; J W Robinson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  The Effectiveness and Safety between Monoplane and Biplane Imaging During Coronary Angiographies.

Authors:  Chon-Seng Hong; Zhih-Cherng Chen; Kuo-Ting Tang; Wei-Ting Chang
Journal:  Acta Cardiol Sin       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.672

6.  Dynamic coronary roadmapping during percutaneous coronary intervention: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Kerstin Piayda; Laura Kleinebrecht; Shazia Afzal; Roland Bullens; Iris Ter Horst; Amin Polzin; Verena Veulemans; Lisa Dannenberg; Anna Christina Wimmer; Christian Jung; Florian Bönner; Malte Kelm; Katharina Hellhammer; Tobias Zeus
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.175

7.  Safety and Effectiveness of Neuro-thrombectomy on Single compared to Biplane Angiography Systems.

Authors:  Adrien Guenego; Pascal J Mosimann; Max Wintermark; Jeremy J Heit; Kevin Zuber; Tomas Dobrocky; Jean Albert Lotterie; Patrick Nicholson; David G Marcellus; Jean Marc Olivot; Nestor Gonzalez; Raphaël Blanc; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Jan Gralla; Johannes Kaesmacher; Robert Fahed; Michel Piotin; Christophe Cognard
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Determination of geometric information and radiation field overlaps on the skin in percutaneous coronary interventions with computer-aided design-based X-ray beam modeling.

Authors:  Atsushi Fukuda; Pei-Jan P Lin; Nao Ichikawa; Kosuke Matsubara
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 2.102

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.