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


     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 49:828, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.11.027 (Published online 6 February 2007).
© 2007 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
j.jacc.2006.11.027v1
49/7/828-a    most recent
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 Related articles in JACC
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Strauss, H. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Strauss, H. W.

CORRESPONDENCE: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Reply

H. William Strauss, MD*

* Nuclear Medicine, Training Program Director, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, Room S212, New York, New York 10021 (Email: straussh{at}mskcc.org).

We appreciate and agree with Prof. Conti’s insightful commentary and the perspective he provides. We do not advocate either multislice computed tomography (MSCT) or conventional coronary angiography as the superior diagnostic modality (1). Rather, we have attempted to place their respective radiation risks in the context of total procedure risk. Although there is a greater procedure risk associated with selective coronary arteriography than with MSCT, this is only one component of the total decision-making process. Catheterization, with intent to treat, provides a range of options that can be readily exercised during the procedure. Depending on the clinical circumstances, selecting catheterization with the potential to perform a percutaneous intervention, rather than MSCT, might be entirely appropriate. However, in the patient where there is uncertainty about the diagnosis or where a "road map" may expedite the interventional procedure, MSCT may be a valuable first step in the process.

Patients will, of course, ultimately benefit by receiving the appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Prof. Conti has identified circumstances where conventional coronary angiography is the "gold standard," and clinical considerations would, justifiably, lead the physician to choose conventional over MSCT coronary angiography. Our contention remains that this choice should, however, not be based on dosimetric considerations.


   References
Top
 References
 

  1. Zanzonico P, Rothenberg LN, Strauss HW. Radiation exposure of computed tomography and direct intracoronary angiography: risk has its reward J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1846-1849.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Related articles in JACC:

Comparing Radiation Doses From 2 Diagnostic Tests
C. Richard Conti
JACC 2007 49: 828. [Full Text]  




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
j.jacc.2006.11.027v1
49/7/828-a    most recent
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 Related articles in JACC
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Strauss, H. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Strauss, H. W.

HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK