Journals / The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology / 2017 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4

Beam projections and radiation exposure in transradial and transfemoral approaches during coronary angiography

Pages
298–303
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings need to be considered when choosing the optimal arterial approach for patients scheduled for coronary angiography.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We aimed to compare the operator and patient radiation exposure in standard projections during elective diagnostic coronary angiography procedures via transradial (TRA) versus transfemoral (TFA) approaches.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this analytical cross-sectional study, a total of 202 consecutive patients who were candidates for diagnostic coronary angiography were randomized to undergo the procedure via TFA or TRA approaches (101 in each group).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings need to be considered when choosing the optimal arterial approach for patients scheduled for coronary angiography.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to compare the operator and patient radiation exposure in standard projections during elective diagnostic coronary angiography procedures via transradial (TRA) versus transfemoral (TFA) approaches. Methods: In this analytical cross-sectional study, a total of 202 consecutive patients who were candidates for diagnostic coronary angiography were randomized to undergo the procedure via TFA or TRA approaches (101 in each group). Patients with abnormal Allen test and history of coronary artery bypass surgery, valvular heart disease, and unsuccessful coronary angiography were excluded from the study. A single operator performed all of the procedures using a single angiography system. Patient and operator radiation exposure were measured using diamentor and an electronic personal dosimeter, respectively. Each procedure comprised a standardized sequence of projections including four standard views for the left coronary system and two standard views for the right coronary system. Results: Left anterior oblique (LAO) caudal (50°/30°) and right anterior oblique RAO (30°) projections were associated with the highest and lowest patient radiation exposure, respectively. The operator received a significantly higher radiation exposure in the TRA approach for LAO cranial (for both left and right coronary systems) and LAO caudal (for left coronary system) projections during coronary angiography compared with the TFA approach. Conclusion: Though a similar amount of patient radiation exposure in each projection was observed among TFA and TRA groups; LAO cranial and LAO caudal projections were associated with a significantly higher operator radiation exposure in the TRA group. These findings need to be considered when choosing the optimal arterial approach for patients scheduled for coronary angiography.

🔖

Cite This Article

TARİGHATNİA, A., MOHAMMADALİAN, A., GHOJAZADE, M., POURAFKARİ, L., FARAJOLLAHİ, A. (2017). Beam projections and radiation exposure in transradial and transfemoral approaches during coronary angiography. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4, 298–303. https://ajindex.com/articles/365814

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Klein LW, Miller DL, Balter S, Laskey W, Haines D, Norbash A, et al. Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20: S278-S83
  2. Kuon E, Birkel J, Schmitt M, Dahm JB. Radiation exposure benefit of a lead cap in invasive cardiology. Heart 2003; 89: 1205-10
  3. Farajollahi A, Rahimi A, Khayati Sahil E, Ghaffari S, Ghojazadeh M, Tajlil A, et al. Patient's Radiation Exposure in Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty: The Impact of Different Projections. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res 2014; 6: 247-52
  4. Agarwal S, Parashar A, Bajaj NS, Khan I, Ahmad I, Heupler FA Jr, et al. Relationship of beam angulation and radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 558-66
  5. Chambers CE, Fetterly KA, Holzer R, Lin PJ, Blankenship JC, Balter S, et al. Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 77: 546-56
  6. Kuon E, Dahm JB, Empen K, Robinson DM, Reuter G, Wucherer M. Identification of less-irradiating tube angulations in invasive cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 1420-8
  7. Partridge JB, Slaughter RE. Radiographic projections for coronary angiography--Implications for digital subtraction angiography. Australas Radiol 1986; 30: 230-5
  8. Smith IR, Cameron J, Mengersen KL, Rivers JT. Evaluation of coronary angiographic projections to balance the clinical yield with the radiation risk. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e722-8
  9. Kuon E, Empen K, Reuter G, Dahm JB. Personal operator dose in invasive cardiology as a function of body height and tube angulation. Rofo 2004; 176: 739-45
  10. Leyton F, Nogueira MS, Gubolino LA, Pivetta MR, Ubeda C. Correlation between scatter radiation dose at height of operator's eye and dose to patient for different angiographic projections. Appl Radiat Isot 2016; 117: 100-5
  11. Bertrand OF, Belisle P, Joyal D, Costerousse O, Rao SV, Jolly SS, et al. Comparison of transradial and femoral approaches for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2012; 163: 632-48
  12. Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, Kaltenbach LA, Baklanov DV, Kim LK, Wong SC, et al. Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012). Circulation 2013; 127: 2295-306
  13. Yuan DZ, Brooks M, Dabin B, Higgs E, Hyun K,