医学
透视
克尔玛
核医学
导管
冠状动脉造影
辐射暴露
剂量面积积
随机对照试验
血管造影
外科
内科学
剂量学
心肌梗塞
作者
Felipe Maia,Cleverson Zukowski,M R de Oliveira,Daniel Jiménez Peralta,Pedro Beraldo de Andrade,Marden André Tebet,Vinícius Esteves,Luiz Alberto Mattos,Esmeralci Ferreira,Denílson Campos de Albuquerque
摘要
Background In high-expertise transradial (TR) centers, the radiation exposure to patients during coronary angiography (CAG) is equivalent to transfemoral use. However, there is no definitive information during TR-CAG regarding the use of a single, dedicated catheter to impart less radiation exposure to patients. Objective We compare the radiation exposure to patients during right TR-CAG with Tiger II catheter (Terumo Interventional Systems) vs Judkins right (JR) 4.0/Judkins left (JL) 3.5 catheters (Cordis Corporation). Methods This multicenter, randomized, and prospective trial included 180 patients submitted to right TR-CAG, with the primary objective of observing radiation exposure to patients through the measurement of fluoroscopy time, air kerma (AK), and dose-area product (DAP) using Tiger II (group 1) vs JR 4.0 and JL 3.5 Judkins catheters (group 2). Secondary outcomes included contrast volume usage and the need to use additional catheters to complete the procedure (the crossover technique). Results Group 1 demonstrated reduced fluoroscopy time (2.47 ± 1.05 minutes in group 1 vs 2.68 ± 1.26 minutes in group 2; P=.01) and non-significant reduction of AK (540.9 ± 225.3 mGy in group 1 vs 577.9 ± 240.1 mGy in group 2; P=.34) and DAP (3786.7 ± 1731.7 μGy•m² in group 1 vs 4058.0 ± 1735.4 μGy•m² in group 2; P=.12). Contrast volume usage (53.46 ± 10.09 mL in group 1 vs 55.98 ± 10.43 mL in group 2; P=.13) and the need for additional catheters (5.56% in group 1 vs 4.44% in group 2; P>.99) were similar between groups. Conclusion The Tiger II catheter was able to reduce radiation exposure to patients submitted to TR-CAG through a significant reduction in fluoroscopy time.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI