OBJECTIVES: This study reports the results a novel radiation reduction protocol (RRP) system for coronary angiography and interventional procedures and the determinants of radiation dose. BACKGROUND: The cardiac catheterization laboratory is an important source of radiation and should be kept in good working order with dose-reduction and monitoring capabilities. METHODS: All diagnostic coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions from a single catheterization laboratory were analyzed 2 months before and after RRP implementation. The primary outcome was the relative dose reduction at the interventional reference point. Separate analyses were done for conventional 15 frames/s (FPS) and at reduced 7.5 FPS post-RRP groups. RESULTS: A total of 605 patients underwent coronary angiography (309 before RRP and 296 after RRP), with 129 (42%) and 122 (41%) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions before and after RRP, respectively. With RRP, a 48% dose reduction (1.07 ± 0.05 Gy vs. 0.56 ± 0.03 Gy, p < 0.0001) was obtained, 35% with 15 FPS RRP (0.70 ± 0.05 Gy, p < 0.0001) and 62% with 7.5 FPS RRP (0.41 ± 0.03 Gy, p < 0.001). Similar dose reductions for diagnostic angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions were noted. There was no change in the number of stents placed or vessels intervened on. Increased dose was associated with male sex, radial approach, increasing body mass index, cine runs, and frame rates. Using a multivariable model, a 48% relative risk with RRP (p < 0.001), 44% with 15 FPS RRP and 68% with 7.5 FPS RRP was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a highly significant 48.5% adjusted radiation dose reduction using a novel algorithm, which needs strong consideration among interventional cardiology practice.
OBJECTIVES: This study reports the results a novel radiation reduction protocol (RRP) system for coronary angiography and interventional procedures and the determinants of radiation dose. BACKGROUND: The cardiac catheterization laboratory is an important source of radiation and should be kept in good working order with dose-reduction and monitoring capabilities. METHODS: All diagnostic coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions from a single catheterization laboratory were analyzed 2 months before and after RRP implementation. The primary outcome was the relative dose reduction at the interventional reference point. Separate analyses were done for conventional 15 frames/s (FPS) and at reduced 7.5 FPS post-RRP groups. RESULTS: A total of 605 patients underwent coronary angiography (309 before RRP and 296 after RRP), with 129 (42%) and 122 (41%) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions before and after RRP, respectively. With RRP, a 48% dose reduction (1.07 ± 0.05 Gy vs. 0.56 ± 0.03 Gy, p < 0.0001) was obtained, 35% with 15 FPS RRP (0.70 ± 0.05 Gy, p < 0.0001) and 62% with 7.5 FPS RRP (0.41 ± 0.03 Gy, p < 0.001). Similar dose reductions for diagnostic angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions were noted. There was no change in the number of stents placed or vessels intervened on. Increased dose was associated with male sex, radial approach, increasing body mass index, cine runs, and frame rates. Using a multivariable model, a 48% relative risk with RRP (p < 0.001), 44% with 15 FPS RRP and 68% with 7.5 FPS RRP was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a highly significant 48.5% adjusted radiation dose reduction using a novel algorithm, which needs strong consideration among interventional cardiology practice.
Authors: Alejandro Gutiérrez-Barrios; Hugo Camacho-Galán; Francisco Medina-Camacho; Dolores Cañadas-Pruaño; Antonio Jimenez-Moreno; German Calle-Perez; Rafael Vázquez-García Journal: Tex Heart Inst J Date: 2019-06-01
Authors: Moritz Seiffert; Francisco Ojeda; Kai Müllerleile; Elvin Zengin; Christoph Sinning; Christoph Waldeyer; Edith Lubos; Ulrich Schäfer; Karsten Sydow; Stefan Blankenberg; Dirk Westermann Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Min Ku Chon; Kook Jin Chun; Dae Sung Lee; Soo Yong Lee; Jongmin Hwang; Sang Hyun Lee; Ki Won Hwang; Jeong Su Kim; Young Huyn Park; June Hong Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.889