Angiografía coronaria con técnica rotacional doble: eficacia y seguridad frente a la coronariografía convencional

Background Conventional coronary angiography (CA) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. However, this technique requires several orthogonal projections to determine the severity of the disease. Dual-axis rotational coronary angiography (DARCA) is a new technique which ac...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Revista Argentina de Cardiología 2012, Vol.80 (4), p.280-285
Hauptverfasser: Torrent, Fabricio, Peralta Galisteo, Sebastián, Nau, Gerardo, Albertal, Mariano, Cura, Fernando, Padilla, Lucio, Belardi, Jorge, Candiello, Alfonsina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:spa
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Conventional coronary angiography (CA) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. However, this technique requires several orthogonal projections to determine the severity of the disease. Dual-axis rotational coronary angiography (DARCA) is a new technique which acquires the image of each coronary artery using a single contrast injection, potentially reducing both radiation and contrast exposure. Objective The aim of this study was to determine the amount of contrast used, radiation exposure and diagnostic accuracy of DARCA compared to conventional CA. Methods We conducted a prospective, self-controlled study of consecutive patients undergoing elective coronary angiography to compare DARCA versus the conventional technique. All the angiographies were reviewed by two independent interventional cardiologists (observer 1 and observer 2) who evaluated agreement between both types of images. The observers evaluated firstly DARCA and three weeks later conventional CA images to prevent bias in their interpretation. Results The contrast volume used in the diagnostic procedure was significantly lower with DARCA (33.29 ± 11.2 ml vs. 17±5.4 ml; p < 0.01). Radiation exposure in the patient (235.6 ± 76.8 mGy vs. 82.7 ± 46.6 mGy; p