Cargando…

Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention

INTRODUCTION: Most endovascular techniques are associated with patient and personal exposure to radiation during the procedure. Ionising radiation can cause deterministic effects, such as skin injury, as well as stochastic effects, which increase the long-term risk of malignancy. Endovascular operat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arif, Salech, Bartus, Stanislaw, Rakowski, Tomasz, Bobrowska, Beata, Rutka, Joanna, Zabowka, Anna, Tokarek, Tomasz, Dudek, Dariusz, Dubiel, Jacek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25489329
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pwki.2014.46776
_version_ 1782347175359938560
author Arif, Salech
Bartus, Stanislaw
Rakowski, Tomasz
Bobrowska, Beata
Rutka, Joanna
Zabowka, Anna
Tokarek, Tomasz
Dudek, Dariusz
Dubiel, Jacek
author_facet Arif, Salech
Bartus, Stanislaw
Rakowski, Tomasz
Bobrowska, Beata
Rutka, Joanna
Zabowka, Anna
Tokarek, Tomasz
Dudek, Dariusz
Dubiel, Jacek
author_sort Arif, Salech
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Most endovascular techniques are associated with patient and personal exposure to radiation during the procedure. Ionising radiation can cause deterministic effects, such as skin injury, as well as stochastic effects, which increase the long-term risk of malignancy. Endovascular operators need to be aware of radiation danger and take all necessary steps to minimise the risk to patients and staff. Some procedures, especially percutaneous peripheral artery revascularisation, are associated with increased radiation dose due to time-consuming operations. There is limited data comparing radiation dose during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of peripheral arteries. AIM: To compare the radiation dose in percutaneous coronary vs. peripheral interventions in one centre with a uniform system of protection methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 352 patients were included in the study. This included 217 patients undergoing PCI (single and multiple stenting) and 135 patients undergoing PTA (in lower extremities, carotid artery, renal artery, and subclavian artery). Radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and total procedural time were reviewed. Cumulative radiation dose was measured in gray (Gy) units. RESULTS: The total procedural time was significantly higher in PTA (PCI vs. PTA: 60 (45–85) min vs. 75 (50–100) min), p < 0.001. The radiation dose for PCI procedures was significantly higher in comparison to PTA (PCI vs. PTA: 1.36 (0.83–2.23) Gy vs. 0.27 (0.13–0.46) Gy), p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in the fluoroscopy time (PCI vs. PTA: 12.9 (8.2–21.5) min vs. 14.4 (8.0–22.6) min), p = 0.6. The analysis of correlation between radiation dose and fluoroscopy time in PCI and PTA interventions separately shows a strong correlation in PCI group (r = 0.785). However, a weak correlation was found in PTA group (r = 0.317). CONCLUSIONS: The radiation dose was significantly higher during PCI in comparison to PTA procedures despite comparable fluoroscopy time and longer total procedure time in PTA. Fluoroscopy time is a reliable parameter to control the radiation dose exposure in coronary procedures. The increasing complexity of endovascular interventions has resulted in the increase of radiation dose exposure during PCI procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4252332
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42523322014-12-08 Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention Arif, Salech Bartus, Stanislaw Rakowski, Tomasz Bobrowska, Beata Rutka, Joanna Zabowka, Anna Tokarek, Tomasz Dudek, Dariusz Dubiel, Jacek Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Original Paper INTRODUCTION: Most endovascular techniques are associated with patient and personal exposure to radiation during the procedure. Ionising radiation can cause deterministic effects, such as skin injury, as well as stochastic effects, which increase the long-term risk of malignancy. Endovascular operators need to be aware of radiation danger and take all necessary steps to minimise the risk to patients and staff. Some procedures, especially percutaneous peripheral artery revascularisation, are associated with increased radiation dose due to time-consuming operations. There is limited data comparing radiation dose during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of peripheral arteries. AIM: To compare the radiation dose in percutaneous coronary vs. peripheral interventions in one centre with a uniform system of protection methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 352 patients were included in the study. This included 217 patients undergoing PCI (single and multiple stenting) and 135 patients undergoing PTA (in lower extremities, carotid artery, renal artery, and subclavian artery). Radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and total procedural time were reviewed. Cumulative radiation dose was measured in gray (Gy) units. RESULTS: The total procedural time was significantly higher in PTA (PCI vs. PTA: 60 (45–85) min vs. 75 (50–100) min), p < 0.001. The radiation dose for PCI procedures was significantly higher in comparison to PTA (PCI vs. PTA: 1.36 (0.83–2.23) Gy vs. 0.27 (0.13–0.46) Gy), p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in the fluoroscopy time (PCI vs. PTA: 12.9 (8.2–21.5) min vs. 14.4 (8.0–22.6) min), p = 0.6. The analysis of correlation between radiation dose and fluoroscopy time in PCI and PTA interventions separately shows a strong correlation in PCI group (r = 0.785). However, a weak correlation was found in PTA group (r = 0.317). CONCLUSIONS: The radiation dose was significantly higher during PCI in comparison to PTA procedures despite comparable fluoroscopy time and longer total procedure time in PTA. Fluoroscopy time is a reliable parameter to control the radiation dose exposure in coronary procedures. The increasing complexity of endovascular interventions has resulted in the increase of radiation dose exposure during PCI procedures. Termedia Publishing House 2014-11-17 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4252332/ /pubmed/25489329 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pwki.2014.46776 Text en Copyright © 2014 Termedia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Arif, Salech
Bartus, Stanislaw
Rakowski, Tomasz
Bobrowska, Beata
Rutka, Joanna
Zabowka, Anna
Tokarek, Tomasz
Dudek, Dariusz
Dubiel, Jacek
Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention
title Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention
title_full Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention
title_fullStr Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention
title_short Comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention
title_sort comparison of radiation dose exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention vs. peripheral intervention
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25489329
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pwki.2014.46776
work_keys_str_mv AT arifsalech comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT bartusstanislaw comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT rakowskitomasz comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT bobrowskabeata comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT rutkajoanna comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT zabowkaanna comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT tokarektomasz comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT dudekdariusz comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention
AT dubieljacek comparisonofradiationdoseexposureinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionvsperipheralintervention