Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of low-dose (LD) radiation (≤7.5 frames/second [f/s]) compared with standard-dose (SD) radiation (≥10 f/s) in cardiac catheterization (CC) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients undergoing CC with LD vs SD radiation have not been previously studied. METHODS: We performed an observational study of 452 consecutive patients (61 ± 12 years) who had coronary angiography or PCI from September 2016 to September 2017. Patients were divided into an LD radiation group (n = 136) consisting of 0.5 f/s and 1 f/s (n = 73), 4 f/s (n = 40), or 7.5 f/s fluoroscopy (n = 23) with 7.5 f/s cine angiography vs an SD group (n = 316) consisting of 10 f/s (n = 250), 15 f/s (n = 64), or 30 f/s fluoroscopy (n = 2) and 10-30 f/s cine angiography. Primary endpoints included air kerma, dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and contrast use. RESULTS: Compared with SD radiation, LD radiation was associated with a significant reduction in air kerma (100.70 mGy [IQR, 46.42-233.35 mGy] vs 660.96 mGy [IQR, 362.78-1373.65 mGy]; P<.001), DAP (723.60 μGy•m² [IQR, 313.09-2328.22 μGy•m²] vs 5203.40 μGy•m² [IQR, 2743.55-10064.71 μGy•m²]; P<.001), and contrast use (100 mL [IQR, 60-150 mL] vs 115 mL [IQR, 80-180 mL]; P<.03). No difference in fluoroscopy time was noted (13.33 min [IQR, 6.93-25.55 min] vs 12.75 min [IQR, 7.75-22.55 min]; P=.95). CONCLUSIONS: LD radiation in CC was efficacious, with significant radiation reduction and without an increase in fluoroscopy time or contrast utilization. All patients underwent successful LD radiation catheterization without conversion to SD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kar et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: