RESUMEN
Background:Advantages and disadvantages of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention have been described. However little is known about the radiation exposure of that procedure as compared with the staged intervention.Objective:To compare the radiation dose of the ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention with that of the staged procedureMethods:The dose-area product and total Kerma were measured, and the doses of the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were added. In addition, total fluoroscopic time and number of acquisitions were evaluated.Results:A total of 568 consecutive patients were treated with ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 320) or staged percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 248). On admission, the ad hoc group had less hypertension (74.1% vs 81.9%; p = 0.035), dyslipidemia (57.8% vs. 67.7%; p = 0.02) and three-vessel disease (38.8% vs. 50.4%; p = 0.015). The ad hoc group was exposed to significantly lower radiation doses, even after baseline characteristic adjustment between both groups. The ad hoc group was exposed to a total dose-area product of 119.7 ± 70.7 Gycm2, while the staged group, to 139.2 ± 75.3 Gycm2 (p < 0.001).Conclusion:Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention reduced radiation exposure as compared with diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed at two separate times.
Fundamento:Uma série de vantagens e desvantagens tem sido descrita para a intervenção coronária percutânea ad hoc, como a realizada ao mesmo tempo que o cateterismo diagnóstico, porém pouco se sabe sobre a exposição radiológica desse procedimento, comparado com a intervenção estadiada, ou seja, em dois momentos.Objetivo:Comparar a dose de radiação utilizada na angioplastia ad hoc com a angioplastia estadiada.Métodos:O produto de dose por área e o Kerma total foram mensurados, somando-se ambas as fases de diagnóstico e terapêutica. Além disso, foram computados o tempo total de fluoroscopia e o número de filmagens.Resultados:Um total de 568 pacientes consecutivos foram tratados com intervenção coronária percutânea ad hoc (n = 320) ou estadiada (n = 248). À admissão, o grupo do ad hoc apresentava menos hipertensão (74,1% vs. 81,9%; p = 0,035), dislipidemia (57,8% vs. 67,7%; p = 0,02) e doença triarterial (38,8% vs. 50,4%; p = 0,015). O grupo ad hoc foi exposto a doses significativamente menores de radiação, mesmo após ajuste para as diferenças basais entre os grupos. O grupo ad hoc foi exposto a uma dose de produto de dose por área total de 119,7 ± 70,7 Gycm2 enquanto que os pacientes estadiados foram expostos a uma dose de 139,2 ± 75,3 Gycm2 (p < 0,001).Conclusão:A intervenção coronária percutânea ad hoc reduziu a exposição radiológica, em comparação com procedimentos diagnósticos e terapêuticos realizados em tempos separados.
Asunto(s)
Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Dosis de Radiación , Exposición a la Radiación/prevención & control , Angiografía Coronaria , Cateterismo Cardíaco/métodos , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Fluoroscopía/métodos , Estudios Prospectivos , Monitoreo de Radiación , Factores de Riesgo , Estadísticas no Paramétricas , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Advantages and disadvantages of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention have been described. However little is known about the radiation exposure of that procedure as compared with the staged intervention. OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiation dose of the ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention with that of the staged procedureMethods:The dose-area product and total Kerma were measured, and the doses of the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were added. In addition, total fluoroscopic time and number of acquisitions were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 568 consecutive patients were treated with ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 320) or staged percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 248). On admission, the ad hoc group had less hypertension (74.1% vs 81.9%; p = 0.035), dyslipidemia (57.8% vs. 67.7%; p = 0.02) and three-vessel disease (38.8% vs. 50.4%; p = 0.015). The ad hoc group was exposed to significantly lower radiation doses, even after baseline characteristic adjustment between both groups. The ad hoc group was exposed to a total dose-area product of 119.7 ± 70.7 Gycm2, while the staged group, to 139.2 ± 75.3 Gycm2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention reduced radiation exposure as compared with diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed at two separate times.