Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Benefits of dual-axis rotational coronary angiography in routine clinical practice

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Heart and Vessels Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dual-axis rotational coronary angiography (DARCA) is a new imaging technique involving three-dimensional rotation of the gantry around the patient with simultaneous left to right and craniocaudal movements. This allows complete imaging of the left or right coronary tree with a single acquisition run. Previous small studies have indicated that DARCA is associated with reduced radiation dose and contrast use in comparison with standard coronary angiography (SCA). We conducted a registry of unselected patients undergoing DARCA or SCA. DARCA was used in 107 patients and SCA in 105 patients. Mean number of acquisition runs was 2.6 for DARCA and 6.9 for SCA (P < 0.0001). Mean radiation dose (dose–area product, DAP) was 30.4 Gy cm2 for SCA and 15.9 Gy cm2 for DARCA (P < 0.0001). Mean contrast volume was 41.7 ml for SCA and 25.7 ml for DARCA (P < 0.0001). Case time for DARCA in the first half of the study was 20.8 ± 1.4 min compared with 15.2 ± 2.0 min in the second half of the study (P = 0.0015), suggesting a learning curve. In the DARCA group, 64 % of patients required only two acquisition runs for complete and satisfactory imaging. There were no adverse effects resulting from DARCA. Two cases are presented to illustrate the diagnostic ability of DARCA. DARCA was associated with a 48 % reduction in radiation dose and 36 % reduction in contrast volume in comparison with SCA, with comparable diagnostic ability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

  2. Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E, Lasic Z, Iakovou I, Fahy M, Mintz GS, Lansky AJ, Moses JW, Stone GW, Leon MB, Dangas G (2004) A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:1393–1399

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klein AJ, Garcia JA, Hudson PA, Kim MS, Messenger JC, Casserly IP, Wink O, Hattler B, Tsai TT, Chen SY, Hansgen A, Carroll JD (2011) Safety and efficacy of dual-axis rotational coronary angiography vs. standard coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 77:820–827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garcia JA, Agostoni P, Green NE, Maddux JT, Chen SY, Messenger JC, Casserly IP, Hansgen A, Wink O, Movassaghi B, Groves BM, Van Den Heuvel P, Verheye S, Van Langenhove G, Vermeersch P, Van den Branden F, Yeghiazarians Y, Michaels AD, Carroll JD (2009) Rotational vs. standard coronary angiography: an image content analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 73:753–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Le Heron JC (1992) Estimation of effective dose to the patient during medical X-ray examinations from measurements of the dose-area product. Phys Med Biol 37:2117–2126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bogaert E, Bacher K, Thierens H (2008) Interventional cardiovascular procedures in Belgium: effective dose and conversion factors. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 129:77–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Empen K, Kuon E, Hummel A, Gebauer C, Dorr M, Konemann R, Hoffmann W, Staudt A, Weitmann K, Reffelmann T, Felix SB (2010) Comparison of rotational with conventional coronary angiography. Am Heart J 160:552–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wall B, Haylock R, Jansen JTM, Hillier MC, Hart D, Shrimpton PC (2011) Radiation risks from medical X-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. Health Protection Agency, Chilton

  9. Martin CJ (2007) Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 80:639–647

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grech M, Debono J, Xuereb RG, Fenech A, Grech V (2012) A comparison between dual axis rotational coronary angiography and conventional coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80:576–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirshfeld JW Jr (2011) Radiation exposure in cardiovascular medicine: how do we protect our patients and ourselves? Circ Cardiovasc Interv 4:216–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gomez-Menchero AE, Diaz JF, Sanchez-Gonzalez C, Cardenal R, Sanghvi AB, Roa-Garrido J, Rodriguez-Lopez JL (2012) Comparison of dual-axis rotational coronary angiography (XPERSWING) versus conventional technique in routine practice. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl) 65:434–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wrixon AD (2008) New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prot 28:161–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1997) Radiological protection and safety in medicine. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF (2007) Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK—2005 review. Health Protection Agency

  17. Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, Shah ND, Nasir K, Einstein AJ, Nallamothu BK (2009) Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 361:849–857

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eisenberg MJ, Afilalo J, Lawler PR, Abrahamowicz M, Richard H, Pilote L (2011) Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction. CMAJ 183:430–436

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP (2004) Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 231:393–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maddux JT, Wink O, Messenger JC, Groves BM, Liao R, Strzelczyk J, Chen SY, Carroll JD (2004) Randomized study of the safety and clinical utility of rotational angiography versus standard angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 62:167–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ogita M, Sakakura K, Nakamura T, Funayama H, Wada H, Naito R, Sugawara Y, Kubo N, Ako J, Momomura S (2012) Association between deteriorated renal function and long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart Vessels 27:460–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Utsunomiya D, Fukunaga T, Oda S, Awai K, Nakaura T, Urata J, Yamashita Y (2011) Multidetector computed tomography evaluation of coronary plaque morphology in patients with stable angina. Heart Vessels 26:392–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harigaya H, Motoyama S, Sarai M, Inoue K, Hara T, Okumura M, Naruse H, Ishii J, Hishida H, Ozaki Y (2011) Prediction of the no-reflow phenomenon during percutaneous coronary intervention using coronary computed tomography angiography. Heart Vessels 26:363–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients who enrolled in the study and all participating staff of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at The Canberra Hospital.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Farshid.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 1452 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farshid, A., Chandrasekhar, J. & McLean, D. Benefits of dual-axis rotational coronary angiography in routine clinical practice. Heart Vessels 29, 199–205 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-013-0349-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-013-0349-7

Keywords

Navigation