JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1994; 23:347-351
© 1994 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Federman, J
Right arrow Articles by Holmes, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Federman, J
Right arrow Articles by Holmes, D., Jr

Does the use of new intracoronary interventional devices prolong radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory?

J Federman, MR Bell, MA Wondrow, DE Grill, and DR Holmes Jr

Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905.

OBJECTIVES. The aim of this study was to compare the duration of radiation exposure associated with new percutaneous coronary interventional devices with that associated with conventional balloon angioplasty. BACKGROUND. Radiation exposure levels have been documented to be higher with coronary balloon angioplasty than with routine diagnostic coronary angiography. However, the effect of new interventional devices on radiation exposure has not been studied. METHODS. Fluoroscopic and cineangiographic data from the Mayo Clinic cardiac catheterization laboratory data base of patients having single-segment coronary intervention during a recent 46-month period were retrospectively analyzed. Of 897 patients studied, 646 underwent balloon angioplasty, 138 directional coronary atherectomy (42 with adjunctive balloon angioplasty), 76 excimer laser angioplasty (50 with adjunctive balloon angioplasty) and 37 placement of an intracoronary stent (16 emergencies). RESULTS. Duration of fluoroscopy during balloon angioplasty was 24 +/- 18 min, which was longer than with directional atherectomy (18 +/- 8 min; p = 0.001). Fluoroscopy time was 25 +/- 17 min with laser angioplasty and 29 +/- 15 min with elective stent placement (neither time was significantly different from that with balloon angioplasty). When atherectomy or laser angioplasty was performed with adjunctive balloon angioplasty or if emergency intracoronary stent placement was performed, the duration of fluoroscopy was significantly prolonged compared with balloon angioplasty alone. CONCLUSIONS. Fluoroscopy duration is not prolonged with the use of new interventional coronary devices compared with conventional angioplasty unless adjunctive balloon angioplasty is used or emergency stent placement is required.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
E Vano, L Gonzalez, J I Ten, J M Fernandez, E Guibelalde, and C Macaya
Skin dose and dose-area product values for interventional cardiology procedures
Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2001; 74(877): 48 - 55.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
C. Briguori, I. Sheiban, J. De Gregorio, A. Anzuini, M. Montorfano, P. Pagnotta, F. Marsico, F. Leonardo, C. Di Mario, and A. Colombo
Direct coronary stenting without predilation
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 1, 1999; 34(7): 1910 - 1915.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
J. T. Cusma, M. R. Bell, M. A. Wondrow, J. P. Taubel, and D. R. Holmes Jr.
Real-time measurement of radiation exposure to patients during diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous interventional procedures
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 1, 1999; 33(2): 427 - 435.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1994 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.