The digital catheterization Laboratory - is it Practical Today?

  • Jack T. Cusma
  • Thomas M. Bashore
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 186)


The rapid pace of change in information technologies - computer hardware, software, and networking - has led to expectations among many in the cardiology community that these advances now make it a simple matter to replace 35mm cinefilm with digital techniques. This objective has been delayed, however, due to the difficulty of replacing all the roles played by cinefilm using digital alternatives. Recent developments in technology and in the implementation of standard methods for communicating information among cardiac laboratories and imaging systems demonstrate sufficient promise that it is now realistic to speak of an all-digital catheterization laboratory. It is even, in fact, now feasible to produce a patient and exam record in a digital format containing multiple imaging modalities: x-ray angiography, echocardiography, and nuclear cardiology. In addition to the digital acquisition and review systems which have become commonplace in today’s cardiac catheterization laboratory, it is now possible to exchange patient exams in a digital format using the internationally accepted DICOM standard. Development and acceptance of this standard, implemented using either portable exchange media or over a digital network, has served to overcome one of the most significant obstacles to the transition from cinefilm to an all-digital environment. In addition, the multiple options available for the long-term storage of digital x-ray angiograms make it possible for laboratories with varying needs to move to a cine-less practice. As these laboratories better define their local requirements and balance these needs against the cost and technical capabilities of available options, they will demonstrate that there is no single way to function without cinefilm but, rather, multiple paths that can be taken to the all digital catheterization laboratory.


Nuclear Cardiology Catheterization Laboratory Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory DICOM Standard Digital Acquisition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cusma JT, Fortin DF, Spero LA, Groshong BR, Bashore TM. Which media are most likely to solve the archival problem? Int J Card Imaging 1994;10:165–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morris KG. A perspective: designing the all digital cardiac catheterization laboratory. Am J Card Imaging 1988;2:251–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mistretta CA, Peppier WW. Digital cardiac x-ray imaging: fundamental principles. Am J Card Imaging 1988;2:26–39.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whiting JS. Physical principles and instrumentation in digital angiography. In: Marcus ML, Skorton DJ, Schelbert HR, Wolf GL, editors. Cardiac imaging. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1991:281–94.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Lysel MS, Ergun DL, Miller WP et al. Cardiac digital angiography and dual-energy subtraction imaging: current and future trends. Am J Card Imaging 1987;1:254–66.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cardiac archive and review systems for cardiac catheterization laboratories ~ a post 1995 American College of Cardiology Meeting update. S.I.: Systems Techniques, Inc. 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardiac angiography without cine film: erecting a “Tower of Babel” in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. American College of Cardiology Cardiac Catheterization Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:834–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiber JHC, Serruys PW. Quantitative coronary angiography. In: Marcus ML, Skorton DJ, Schelbert HR, Wolf GL, editors. Cardiac imaging. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1991:211–80.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bidgood WD Jr, Horii SC. Introduction to the ACR-NEMA DICOM standard. Radiographics 1992;12:345–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American College of Cardiology, American College of Radiology and industry develop standard for digital transfer of angiographic images. ACC/ACR/NEMA Ad Hoc Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:800–02.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Condit PB. Requirements for cardiac interchange media and the role of recordable CD. Int J Card Imaging 1995:ll(Suppl.3):153–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cusma JT, Spero LA, Groshong BR, Cho T, Bashore TM. Design and evaluation of a high capacity digital image archival library and high speed network for the replacement of cinefilm in the cardiac angiography environment. Proc SPIE 1993;1899:413–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brennecke R, Lang M, Fritsch JP, Erbel R, Meyer J. A framework for PACS development in cardiology. Comput Cardiol 1992:259–61.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rabbani M, Jones PW. Image compression techniques for medical diagnostic imaging systems. J Digit Imaging 1991;4:65–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rigolin VH, Robiolio PA, Spero LA et al. Compression of digital coronary angiograms does not affect visual or quantitative assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity. Am J Cardiol. In press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whiting J, Eckstein M, Honig D, Gu S, Einav S, Eigler N. Effect of lossy image compression on observer performance in dynamically displayed digital coronary angiograms [abstract]. Circulation 1992;86(Suppl.I):1444Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack T. Cusma
  • Thomas M. Bashore

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations