Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2005 February;53(1) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2005 February;53(1):1-6

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA CARDIOANGIOLOGICA

A Journal on Heart and Vascular Diseases


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752

 

Minerva Cardioangiologica 2005 February;53(1):1-6

 ORIGINAL ARTICLES

A randomized comparison between rotational and standard coronary angiography''

Rigattieri S., Ghini A. S., Silvestri P., Tommasino A., Ferraiuolo G., Palamara A., Loschiavo P.

Aim. Selective coronary angiography is nowadays the gold standard in the definition of coronary anatomy as well as the basis for percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the diagnostic accuracy of coronary angiography can be reduced if the number of angiographic views is inadequate or if the operator does not select appropriate projections. Rotational angiography (RA) has been proposed as an alternative technique in order to provide a more complete definition of coronary anatomy reducing, at the same time, radiation exposure and contrast medium dose.
Methods. We randomly assigned 31 eligible patients, undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization, to RA (n=16) and traditional angiography (TA, n=15). Total procedural time, fluoroscopy time, number of cine-runs, X-ray dose and contrast medium volume were recorded in both groups.
Results. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in age (59±5.8 vs 62.8±9.6 years, P=ns), body mass index (26.7±3.5 vs 27.1±3.4 kg/m2, P=ns), total procedural time (20.6±6.6 vs 22.2±11.3 min, P=ns) and fluoroscopy time (3.9±1.5 vs 4.9±1.8 min, P=ns). On the contrary, number of cine-runs, X-ray dose and contrast medium volume were significantly lower in RA patients as compared with TA patients (6.2±1.2 vs 9.7±2.1, P<0.01; 530.6±271.6 vs 831.2±343.9 mGy, P<0.05; 76.9±22.4 vs 102.9±26.4 ml, P<0.01, respectively).
Conclusion. RA is safe and effective in defining coronary anatomy, leading to a significant reduction in radiation exposure and contrast medium volume.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page