Division of Cardiology, Department of Interventional Cardiology, Santa Maria University Hospital, Terni, Italy.
Heart. 2013 Apr;99(7):480-4. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302895. Epub 2013 Jan 23.
Left radial access (LRA) and right radial access (RRA) have been shown to be safe and effective for coronary arteries catheterisation. However, the differences between the two approaches in terms of radiation exposure are still unclear. The aim of the present investigation is to evaluate in a randomised study, the dose of radiation absorbed by operators using either LRA or RRA.
Randomised, prospective, double arm, single centre study.
University Hospital.
Male or female subjects with stable, unstable angina and silent ischaemia.
The present study is a comparison of LRA and RRA for coronary artery catheterisation in terms of operators' radiation exposure.
The primary outcome measure was the radiation dose absorbed by operators; secondary outcome measures were fluoroscopy time, dose-area product and contrast delivered.
A total of 413 patients were enrolled; 209 were randomly selected to undergo diagnostic procedures with RRA and 204 with LRA. The operator's radiation exposure was significantly lower in the left radial group (LRA 33±37 μSv vs RRA 44±32 μSv, p=0.04). No significant differences were observed in fluoroscopy time (LRA 349±231s vs RRA 370±246 s p=0.09) and dose-area product (LRA 7011.42±3617.30 μGym(2) vs RRA 7382.38±5226.61 μGym(2), p=0.80), even though in both there was a trend towards a lower level in the LRA. No differences were observed in contrast medium delivered (LRA 89.92±32.55 ml vs RRA 88.88±35.35 ml, p=0.45).
The LRA was associated in the present report with a lower radiation dose absorbed by the operator during coronary angiography.
左桡动脉(LRA)和右桡动脉(RRA)入路已被证明对冠状动脉导管插入术是安全且有效的。然而,两种方法在辐射暴露方面的差异仍不清楚。本研究旨在通过随机研究评估,操作人员使用 LRA 或 RRA 时吸收的辐射剂量。
随机、前瞻性、双臂、单中心研究。
大学医院。
稳定型、不稳定型心绞痛和无症状性缺血的男性或女性患者。
本研究比较了 LRA 和 RRA 在冠状动脉导管插入术方面对操作人员辐射暴露的影响。
主要观察指标是操作人员吸收的辐射剂量;次要观察指标为透视时间、剂量面积乘积和输送的对比剂。
共纳入 413 例患者;209 例随机选择接受 RRA 诊断程序,204 例接受 LRA。左侧桡动脉组(LRA 33±37 μSv 与 RRA 44±32 μSv,p=0.04)操作人员的辐射暴露明显较低。透视时间(LRA 349±231s 与 RRA 370±246 s,p=0.09)和剂量面积乘积(LRA 7011.42±3617.30 μGym(2) 与 RRA 7382.38±5226.61 μGym(2),p=0.80)无显著差异,尽管两者均倾向于 LRA 水平较低。造影剂输送量无差异(LRA 89.92±32.55 ml 与 RRA 88.88±35.35 ml,p=0.45)。
在本报告中,LRA 与冠状动脉造影期间操作人员吸收的辐射剂量较低相关。