Dual-axis rotational coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography: a randomized comparison
- PDF / 1,089,465 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 53 Downloads / 246 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Dual‑axis rotational coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography: a randomized comparison Michaela M. Hell1,2 · Melanie D. Gilg1 · Jens Röther1,3 · Florian Blachutzik1,4 · Stephan Achenbach1 · Christian Schlundt1 Received: 16 May 2020 / Accepted: 6 August 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Background Dual-axis of rotational coronary angiography (RA), with one single cine acquisition during continuous C-arm motion along a pre-described path, is an alternative to conventional coronary angiography (CA). We assessed the performance of RA versus CA in a modern, experienced cath lab setting. Methods Sixty-seven patients with suspected coronary artery disease undergoing invasive coronary angiography were randomized to CA (n = 35) or dual-axis RA (n = 32). CA was performed with four left and two right coronary artery acquisitions with manual contrast medium injection. In RA, one cine acquisition each was performed for the left (5 projections) and right coronary artery (3 projections) with a fixed amount of contrast medium applied by a power injector. In both groups, single cine acquisitions in additional angulations were performed to fully interpret the coronary system, if necessary. Procedural parameters and outcome were compared. Results Mean age was 63 ± 12 years (64% males). Six additional projections were required in the RA group compared to 13 in the CA group (p = 0.173). Fluoroscopy duration (CA: 3 ± 3 min, RA: 3 ± 2 min, p = 0.748) and dose area product (CA: 1291 ± 761 µGym2, RA: 1476 ± 679 µGym2, p = 0.235) did not differ significantly between both groups. For CA, the amount of contrast medium (42 ± 13 vs. 46 ± 8 ml, p = 0.022) and procedure time (8 ± 5 vs. 11 ± 3 min, p
Data Loading...
