Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Randomized Trial Comparing Dual Axis Rotational Versus Conventional Coronary Angiography in a Population with a High Prevalence of Coronary Artery Disease

A Randomized Trial Comparing Dual Axis Rotational Versus Conventional Coronary Angiography in a... Objectives To compare the safety, radiation dose, and contrast volume between dual axis rotational coronary angiography (DARCA) and conventional coronary angiography (CCA). Background CCA is performed in multiple, predefined stationary views, at different angulations around the patient, for both the left and right coronary arteries. DARCA (AlluraXperSwing™, Philips, the Netherlands) involves a pre‐set rotation of the C‐arm around the patient and allows for the visualization of each coronary artery in different views, using a single automatic pump contrast injection. Methods From November 2012 to February 2013, 201 patients were randomly assigned to either CCA (n = 100) or DARCA (n = 101). Exclusion criteria included acute coronary syndrome (ACS), prior PCI or CABG. CCAs were performed in 4 acquisition runs for the left coronary artery and 2 to 3 acquisition runs for the right coronary artery, whereas DARCAs were performed in a single run for each coronary artery. Results Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. The overall prevalence of CAD was 77.6%. The DARCA group had a significant reduction in the amount of contrast, 60 ml (IQR: 52.5–71.5 ml) versus 76 ml (IQR: 68–87 ml), P < 0.0001; and radiation dose by Air Kerma, 269.5 mGy (IQR: 176–450.5) versus 542.1 mGy (IQR: 370.7–720.8), P < 0.0001. There were fewer patients requiring additional projections in the DARCA group: 54.0% versus 75.0%; P = 0.002. Conclusions In a population with a high prevalence of CAD, DARCA was safe and resulted in a significant decrease in contrast volume and radiation dose. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:456–464) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Interventional Cardiology Wiley

A Randomized Trial Comparing Dual Axis Rotational Versus Conventional Coronary Angiography in a Population with a High Prevalence of Coronary Artery Disease

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/a-randomized-trial-comparing-dual-axis-rotational-versus-conventional-B7j6CdDf02

References (23)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
"© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc."
ISSN
0896-4327
eISSN
1540-8183
DOI
10.1111/joic.12148
pmid
25132588
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Objectives To compare the safety, radiation dose, and contrast volume between dual axis rotational coronary angiography (DARCA) and conventional coronary angiography (CCA). Background CCA is performed in multiple, predefined stationary views, at different angulations around the patient, for both the left and right coronary arteries. DARCA (AlluraXperSwing™, Philips, the Netherlands) involves a pre‐set rotation of the C‐arm around the patient and allows for the visualization of each coronary artery in different views, using a single automatic pump contrast injection. Methods From November 2012 to February 2013, 201 patients were randomly assigned to either CCA (n = 100) or DARCA (n = 101). Exclusion criteria included acute coronary syndrome (ACS), prior PCI or CABG. CCAs were performed in 4 acquisition runs for the left coronary artery and 2 to 3 acquisition runs for the right coronary artery, whereas DARCAs were performed in a single run for each coronary artery. Results Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. The overall prevalence of CAD was 77.6%. The DARCA group had a significant reduction in the amount of contrast, 60 ml (IQR: 52.5–71.5 ml) versus 76 ml (IQR: 68–87 ml), P < 0.0001; and radiation dose by Air Kerma, 269.5 mGy (IQR: 176–450.5) versus 542.1 mGy (IQR: 370.7–720.8), P < 0.0001. There were fewer patients requiring additional projections in the DARCA group: 54.0% versus 75.0%; P = 0.002. Conclusions In a population with a high prevalence of CAD, DARCA was safe and resulted in a significant decrease in contrast volume and radiation dose. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:456–464)

Journal

Journal of Interventional Cardiology – Wiley

Published: Oct 1, 2014

There are no references for this article.