Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2019
Is trans-radial approach related to an increased risk of radiation exposure in patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention? (The SAKARYA study).
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Üreyen Çağın Mustafa, Coşansu Kahraman, Vural Mustafa Gökhan, Şahin Sait Emir, Kocayigit Ibrahim, Pabuccu Mustafa Türker, Aksoy Muhammed Necati Murat, Ağaç Mustafa Tarık, Tatlı Ersan, Gündüz Hüseyin, Akdemir Ramazan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: It is still debatable whether diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) increase radiation exposure when performed via radial approach as compared to femoral approach. This question was investigated in this study by comparison of dose-area product (DAP), reference air kerma (RAK), and fluoroscopy time (FT) among radial and femoral approaches.
METHODS: All coronary procedures between November 2015 and November 2017 were assessed; and 4215 coronary procedures were enrolled in the study. Patients with bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, cardiogenic shock, or prior coronary artery bypass surgery were excluded. These 4215 procedures were evaluated for three different categories: diagnostic CA (Group I), PCI in patients with stable angina (Group II), and PCI in patients with ACS (Group III).
RESULTS: Age was significantly higher in the femoral arm of all groups. Among patients in the radial arm of Groups I and II, males were over-represented. Therefore, a multiple linear regression analysis with stepwise method was performed. After adjusting these clinical confounders, there was no significant difference with regard to DAP, RAK, and FT between femoral and radial access in Group I. In contrast, PCI via radial access was significantly associated with increased DAP, RAK, and FT in Groups II and III.
CONCLUSION: In spite of an increased experience with trans-radial approach, PCI of coronary lesions via radial route was associated with a relatively small but significant radiation exposure in our study. Compared to femoral access, diagnostic CA via radial access was not related to an increased radiation exposure.
METHODS: All coronary procedures between November 2015 and November 2017 were assessed; and 4215 coronary procedures were enrolled in the study. Patients with bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, cardiogenic shock, or prior coronary artery bypass surgery were excluded. These 4215 procedures were evaluated for three different categories: diagnostic CA (Group I), PCI in patients with stable angina (Group II), and PCI in patients with ACS (Group III).
RESULTS: Age was significantly higher in the femoral arm of all groups. Among patients in the radial arm of Groups I and II, males were over-represented. Therefore, a multiple linear regression analysis with stepwise method was performed. After adjusting these clinical confounders, there was no significant difference with regard to DAP, RAK, and FT between femoral and radial access in Group I. In contrast, PCI via radial access was significantly associated with increased DAP, RAK, and FT in Groups II and III.
CONCLUSION: In spite of an increased experience with trans-radial approach, PCI of coronary lesions via radial route was associated with a relatively small but significant radiation exposure in our study. Compared to femoral access, diagnostic CA via radial access was not related to an increased radiation exposure.