INTRODUCTION: Various studies address discrepancies between guideline recommendations for coronary angiographies and clinical practice. While the issue of the appropriateness of recurrent angiographies was studied focusing on the role of the cardiologist, little is known about individual patients' histories and the associated radiation exposures. METHODS: We analyzed all patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in an academic teaching practice who underwent at least one angiography with or without intervention between 2004 and 2009. All performed angiographies in these patients were analyzed and rated by three physicians for appropriateness levels according to cardiology guidelines. Typical exposure data from the medical literature were used to estimate individual radiation exposure. RESULTS: In the cohort of 147 patients, a total of 441 procedures were analyzed: between 1981 and 2009, three procedures were performed per patient (range 1-19) on average. Appropriateness ratings were 'high/intermediate' in 71%, 'low/no' in 27.6% and data were insufficient for ratings in 1.4%. Procedures with 'low/no' ratings were associated with potentially avoidable exposures of up to 186 mSv for single patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using retrospective data, we exemplify the potential benefit of guideline adherence to decrease patients' radiation exposures. KEY POINTS: • A cohort study of 147 patients showed 27.6% low appropriateness procedures. • Potentially avoidable radiation exposure cumulated up to about 186 mSv for single patients. • Predisposing factors were prior bypass surgery and first treatment in a tertiary centre. • 7.5% of the patients received 58% of the potentially avoidable radiation exposure. • The benefits of guideline adherence in decreasing patient radiation exposure are exemplified.
INTRODUCTION: Various studies address discrepancies between guideline recommendations for coronary angiographies and clinical practice. While the issue of the appropriateness of recurrent angiographies was studied focusing on the role of the cardiologist, little is known about individual patients' histories and the associated radiation exposures. METHODS: We analyzed all patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in an academic teaching practice who underwent at least one angiography with or without intervention between 2004 and 2009. All performed angiographies in these patients were analyzed and rated by three physicians for appropriateness levels according to cardiology guidelines. Typical exposure data from the medical literature were used to estimate individual radiation exposure. RESULTS: In the cohort of 147 patients, a total of 441 procedures were analyzed: between 1981 and 2009, three procedures were performed per patient (range 1-19) on average. Appropriateness ratings were 'high/intermediate' in 71%, 'low/no' in 27.6% and data were insufficient for ratings in 1.4%. Procedures with 'low/no' ratings were associated with potentially avoidable exposures of up to 186 mSv for single patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using retrospective data, we exemplify the potential benefit of guideline adherence to decrease patients' radiation exposures. KEY POINTS: • A cohort study of 147 patients showed 27.6% low appropriateness procedures. • Potentially avoidable radiation exposure cumulated up to about 186 mSv for single patients. • Predisposing factors were prior bypass surgery and first treatment in a tertiary centre. • 7.5% of the patients received 58% of the potentially avoidable radiation exposure. • The benefits of guideline adherence in decreasing patient radiation exposure are exemplified.
Authors: Glenn N Levine; Eric R Bates; James C Blankenship; Steven R Bailey; John A Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E Chambers; Stephen G Ellis; Robert A Guyton; Steven M Hollenberg; Umesh N Khot; Richard A Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam D Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Henry H Ting Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: L David Hillis; Peter K Smith; Jeffrey L Anderson; John A Bittl; Charles R Bridges; John G Byrne; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Verdi J Disesa; Loren F Hiratzka; Adolph M Hutter; Michael E Jessen; Ellen C Keeley; Stephen J Lahey; Richard A Lange; Martin J London; Michael J Mack; Manesh R Patel; John D Puskas; Joseph F Sabik; Ola Selnes; David M Shahian; Jeffrey C Trost; Michael D Winniford Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: C P Cannon; W S Weintraub; L A Demopoulos; R Vicari; M J Frey; N Lakkis; F J Neumann; D H Robertson; P T DeLucca; P M DiBattiste; C M Gibson; E Braunwald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-06-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Judith S Hochman; Gervasio A Lamas; Christopher E Buller; Vladimir Dzavik; Harmony R Reynolds; Staci J Abramsky; Sandra Forman; Witold Ruzyllo; Aldo P Maggioni; Harvey White; Zygmunt Sadowski; Antonio C Carvalho; Jamie M Rankin; Jean P Renkin; P Gabriel Steg; Alice M Mascette; George Sopko; Matthias E Pfisterer; Jonathan Leor; Viliam Fridrich; Daniel B Mark; Genell L Knatterud Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward L Hannan; Michael J Racz; Jeffrey Gold; Kimberly Cozzens; Nicholas J Stamato; Tia Powell; Mary Hibberd; Gary Walford Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 29.690