Reducing radiation exposure is a very important issue in interventional cardiology techniques such as percutaneous coronary intervention. Although novel techniques to reduce radiation exposure are valuable, we should also reconsider older techniques. Digital zoom has been available in Japan from 2005. Digital zoom enlarges an 8-inch field of view (FOV) by 1.2 times, allowing visualization of a 6.7-inch FOV without FOV switching. We identified 2101 suitable cases of percutaneous intervention (PCI) and divided them into two groups according to the use of digital zoom; 1195 patients were included in the digital zoom group and 906 patients in the conventional group. We collected data regarding the reference air kerma (RAK) and dose-area product (DAP). We calculated RAK and DAP per minute fluoroscope time (RAK/min, DAP/min, respectively). There were intergroup differences in RAK, DAP, RAK/min, and DAP/min (digital zoom group vs conventional group; RAK, 1590 mGy [990–2410] vs 1850 [1220–2720], p < 0.01, RAK/min; 54.7 mGy/min [38.5–73.2] vs 71.2 [51.5–93.0], p < 0.01; DAP, 16,000 cGy × cm2 [10,300–24,400] vs 20,700 [13,400–29,500], p < 0.001; DAP/min, 557 cGy × cm2/min [392–737] vs 782 [571–1010], p < 0.01, respectively). Because of baseline differences between the two groups, we performed propensity score matching. Even after score matching, there were intergroup differences in DAP, DAP/min, RAK, and RAK/min. Furthermore, the least squares method showed that digital zoom is a significant predictor of RAK (β = 0.14, p < 0.01) and DAP (β = 0.20, p < 0.01). Digital zoom is an older cost-effective technique that can significantly reduce radiation exposure in PCI.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
I am grateful to Shigenobu Seguchi for collaboration on the early stages of this work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Chida K, Inaba Y, Saito H, et al. Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1680–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins C, Miller DL, Bernardi G, et al. ICRP PUBLICATION 120: radiological protection in cardiology. Ann ICRP. 2013;42(1):1–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delewi R, Hoebers LP, Ramunddal T, et al. Clinical and procedural characteristics associated with higher radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary angiography. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(5):501–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Didier R, Magalhaes MA, Koifman E, et al. The utilisation of the cardiovascular automated radiation reduction X-ray system (CARS) in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory aids in the reduction of the patient radiation dose. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(8):e948–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ector J, Dragusin O, Adriaenssens B, et al. Obesity is a major determinant of radiation dose in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(3):234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faroux L, Blanpain T, Nazeyrollas P, et al. Trends in patient exposure to radiation in percutaneous coronary interventions over a 10-year period. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120(6):927–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). II. Clinical evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(11):2813–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen JW, Foy A, Schmidt T, Ghahramani M, Chambers CE. Fluoroscopy pulse rate reduction during diagnostic and therapeutic imaging in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: an evaluation of radiation dose, procedure complications and outcomes. Catheteriz Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89(4):665–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JCS Joint Working Group. Guideline for radiation safety in interventional cardiology (JCS2011)—digest version. Circ J. 2013;77(2):519–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato M, Chida K, Yoshida K, et al. Reduction method of patients’ radiation dose considering the size of field of view with a digital cine X-ray system loading a flat-panel detector. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2011;67(11):1443–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercuri M, Mehta S, Xie C, Valettas N, Velianou JL, Natarajan MK. Radial artery access as a predictor of increased radiation exposure during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(3):347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross RD, Joshi V, Carravallah DJ, Morrow WR. Reduced radiation during cardiac catheterization of infants using acquisition zoom technology. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79(5):691–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togni M, Balmer F, Pfiffner D, Maier W, Zeiher AM, Meier B. Percutaneous coronary interventions in Europe 1992–2001. Eur Heart J. 2004;25(14):1208–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsapaki V, Magginas A, Vano E, et al. Factors that influence radiation dose in percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol. 2006;19(3):237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet (Lond Engl). 2018;391(10115):31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar