Sun Hongzhi, Qi Lei, Wang Guoliang, Li Huagang, Ji Peng, Hu Maoneng
Imaging Center, The Third People's Hospital of Hefei, Hefei Third Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, China.
Oriental Pan-Vascular Devices Innovation College, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, China.
J Int Med Res. 2025 Jul;53(7):3000605251361099. doi: 10.1177/03000605251361099. Epub 2025 Jul 30.
ObjectiveTo compare the application value of stepping angiography and traditional segmental angiography in lower limb anterograde venography.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted among 95 patients who underwent lower limb anterograde venography at the Hefei Third People's Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui University of Chinese Medicine from September 2021 to December 2024. Among them, 50 patients who underwent traditional segmental angiography were assigned to the control group, while 45 patients who underwent stepping angiography were assigned to the observation group. Comparative assessments were performed between the two groups regarding image quality, angiography time, absorbed radiation dose, contrast agent dosage, and incidence of complications.ResultsThe image quality in the observation group was better than that in the control group. The average angiography time in the control group was 27.87 ± 4.98 min, while that in the observation group was 10.23 ± 2.88 min (=0.013). The average absorbed radiation dose in the control group was 4.65 ± 1.32 Gy, while that in the observation group was 3.53 ± 0.73 Gy (=0.008). The average contrast agent dosage in the control group was 69.42 ± 10.42 mL, while that in the observation group was 47.51 ± 8.14 mL (=0.011). Two complications occurred in the control group, while three occurred in the observation group (=0.339).ConclusionFor lower limb venous lesions, stepping angiography is superior to traditional segmental angiography in terms of overall image quality and practicality. Stepping angiography is a simpler and quicker process, and only a small dose of radiation is absorbed by both doctors and patients; moreover, it requires a lower dosage of contrast agent. It plays an important objective guiding role in the decision-making of treatment plans for lower limb venous diseases.
目的
比较步进血管造影术与传统分段血管造影术在下肢顺行静脉造影中的应用价值。
方法
对2021年9月至2024年12月在合肥市第三人民医院和安徽中医药大学第一附属医院接受下肢顺行静脉造影的95例患者进行回顾性分析。其中，50例行传统分段血管造影术的患者被分配到对照组，45例行步进血管造影术的患者被分配到观察组。对两组患者的图像质量、血管造影时间、吸收辐射剂量、造影剂用量及并发症发生率进行比较评估。
结果
观察组图像质量优于对照组。对照组平均血管造影时间为27.87±4.98分钟，观察组为10.23±2.88分钟（P=0.013）。对照组平均吸收辐射剂量为4.65±1.32 Gy，观察组为3.53±0.73 Gy（P=0.008）。对照组平均造影剂用量为69.42±10.42 mL，观察组为47.51±8.14 mL（P=0.011）。对照组发生2例并发症，观察组发生3例并发症（P=0.339）。
结论
对于下肢静脉病变，步进血管造影术在整体图像质量和实用性方面优于传统分段血管造影术。步进血管造影术操作更简单、更快，医生和患者吸收的辐射剂量小，造影剂用量也更少。它在下肢静脉疾病治疗方案的决策中发挥着重要的客观指导作用。
