Comparison of Contrast Volume, Radiation Dose, Fluoroscopy Time, and Procedure Time in Previously Published Studies of Rotational Versus Conventional Coronary Angiography.

Conventional coronary angiography (CA) with static imaging is limited by the ability to properly select the optimal acquisition angle, vessel foreshortening, and significant radiation exposure. Rotational coronary angiography (RA) acquires coronary images in a multitude of viewing angles during a single injection by means of a moving gantry that rapidly completes a predefined arc. This study compares procedural characteristics of CA and RA. Electronic search of databases such as OVID, Medline, and PubMed was conducted to identify studies comparing procedural characteristics of CA and RA. End points for analysis included contrast volume, radiation dose by dose area product, radiation dose by air kerma, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time. Studies were assessed for quality and bias and were included if they compared coronary imaging of both the right and left coronary systems with CA and RA, included one of the end points of interest, and were in English. A total of 11 studies consisting of 940 patients who underwent RA and 976 who underwent CA were included in the final analysis. Contrast volume, radiation dose by dose area product, and radiation dose by air kerma were all found to be significantly lower with RA compared with CA. There was a statistically significant increase in fluoroscopy time, although this was not clinically significant, and there was no difference in procedure time. RA angiography is a feasible alternative to CA and offers reductions in contrast used and radiation exposure.