Advertisement

Noise reduction technology reduces radiation dose in chronic total occlusions percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score-matched analysis

  • Davide Maccagni
  • Susanna Benincasa
  • Barbara Bellini
  • Luciano Candilio
  • Enrico Poletti
  • Mauro Carlino
  • Antonio Colombo
  • Lorenzo Azzalini
Original Paper

Abstract

Chronic total occlusions (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with high radiation dose. Our study aim was to evaluate the impact of the implementation of a noise reduction technology (NRT) on patient radiation dose during CTO PCI. A total of 187 CTO PCIs performed between February 2016 and May 2017 were analyzed according to the angiographic systems utilized: Standard (n = 60) versus NRT (n = 127). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for differences in baseline characteristics. Primary endpoints were Cumulative Air Kerma at Interventional Reference Point (AK at IRP), which correlates with patient’s tissue reactions; and Kerma Area Product (KAP), a surrogate measure of patient’s risk of stochastic radiation effects. An Efficiency Index (defined as fluoroscopy time/AK at IRP) was calculated for each procedure. Image quality was evaluated using a 5-grade Likert-like scale. After PSM, n = 55 pairs were identified. Baseline and angiographic characteristics were well matched between groups. Compared to the Standard system, NRT was associated with lower AK at IRP [2.38 (1.80–3.66) vs. 3.24 (2.04–5.09) Gy, p = 0.035], a trend towards reduction for KAP [161 (93–244) vs. 203 (136–363) Gycm2, p = 0.069], and a better Efficiency Index [16.75 (12.73–26.27) vs. 13.58 (9.92–17.63) min/Gy, p = 0.003]. Image quality was similar between the two groups (4.39 ± 0.53 Standard vs. 4.34 ± 0.47 NRT, p = 0.571). In conclusion, compared with a Standard system, the use of NRT in CTO PCI is associated with lower patient radiation dose and similar image quality.

Keywords

Percutaneous coronary intervention Chronic total occlusions Radiation Noise reduction technology 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no financial relationships or conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.

Ethical approval

All human and animal studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Supplementary material

10554_2018_1343_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Azzalini L, Jolicoeur EM, Pighi M et al (2016) Epidemiology, management strategies, and outcomes of patients with chronic total coronary occlusion. Am J Cardiol 118:1128–1135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azzalini L, Vo M, Dens J, Agostoni P (2015) Myths to debunk to improve management, referral, and outcomes in patients with chronic total occlusion of an epicardial coronary artery. Am J Cardiol 116:1774–1780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brilakis ES, Banerjee S, Karmpaliotis D et al (2015) Procedural outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8:245–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teramoto T, Tsuchikane E, Matsuo H et al (2014) Initial success rate of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion in a native coronary artery is decreased in patients who underwent previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7:39–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maccagni D, Godino C, Latib A et al (2017) Analysis of a low dose protocol to reduce patient radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol 119:203–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O (2012) Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: A cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention 7:1081–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venneri L, Rossi F, Botto N et al (2009) Cancer risk from professional exposure in staff working in cardiac catheterization laboratory: Insights from the National Research Council’s Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII Report. Am Heart J 157:118–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elmaraezy A, Ebraheem Morra M, Tarek Mohammed A et al (2017) Risk of cataract among interventional cardiologists and catheterization lab staff: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 90:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rehani MM, Srimahachota S (2011) Skin injuries in interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim 147:8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kato M, Chida K, Sato T et al (2012) The necessity of follow-up for radiation skin injuries in patients after percutaneous coronary interventions: radiation skin injuries will often be overlooked clinically. Acta Radiol 53:1040–1044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Balter S, Miller DL (2014) Patient skin reactions from interventional fluoroscopy procedures. Am J Roentgenol 202:W335-42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Söderman M, Holmin S, Andersson T et al (2013) Image noise reduction algorithm for digital subtraction angiography: clinical results. Radiology 269:553–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Philips Healthcare. ClarityIQ technology-white paper. http://www.2.forms.healthcare.philips.com/LP=85. Accessed 6 Feb 2018
  14. 14.
    ICRU (2005) Patient dosimetry for X rays used in medical imaging. Report 74. J ICRU 5:1–113Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirshfeld JW Jr, Balter S, Brinker JA et al (2005) ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/ American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. Circulation 111:511–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ICRP (2013) Radiological protection in cardiology. ICRP Publication 120. Ann ICRP 42(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    (2010) NCRP report no. 168: radiation dose management for fluoroscopically-guided interventional medical proceduresGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balter S, Brinkman M, Kalra S et al (2017) Novel radiation dose reduction fluoroscopic technology facilitates chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions. EuroIntervention 13:e1468–e1474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brilakis ES, Grantham JA, Rinfret S et al (2012) A percutaneous treatment algorithm for crossing coronary chronic total occlusions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 5:367–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morino Y, Abe M, Morimoto T et al (2011) Predicting successful guidewire crossing through chronic total occlusion of native coronary lesions within 30 minutes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4:213–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Azzalini L, Dautov R, Ojeda S et al (2017) Procedural and long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent chronic total occlusion. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:892–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22:140:55Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Austin PC, Stuart EA (2015) Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med 34:3661–3679CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):2Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Godino C, Maccagni D, Pavon AG et al (2013) Estimating incidence of organ cancer related to PCI radiation exposure in patients treated for acute and chronic total occlusions. J Invasive Cardiol 25:441–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ICRP (2006) The optimisation of radiological protection - broadening the process. ICRP publication 101b. Ann ICRP 36 (3)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Schueler BA et al (2010) Clinical radiation management for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Radiology 257:321–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel VG, Brayton KM, Tamayo A et al (2013) Angiographic success and procedural complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary chronic total occlusion interventions: a weighted meta-analysis of 18,061 patients from 65 studies. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6:128–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yasukochi Y, Nakahara T, Koike A et al (2015) Radiation-induced skin ulcer and rib fractures following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): a case of right back skin ulcer and adjacent rib fractures after single PCI. J Dermatol 42:508–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Noonan PT, Georgia JD (2002) Minimizing radiation-induced skin injury in interventional radiology procedures. Radiology 225:329–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shah A, Das P, Subkovas E et al (2015) Radiation dose during coronary angiogram: relation to body mass index. Heart Lung Circ 24:21–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Padovani R, Bernardi G, Malisan MR et al (2001) Patient dose related to the complexity of interventional cardiology procedures. Radiat Prot Dosim 94:189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuon E (2008) Radiation exposure in invasive cardiology. Heart 94:667–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nakamura S, Kobayashi T, Funatsu A et al (2016) Patient radiation dose reduction using an X-ray imaging noise reduction technology for cardiac angiography and intervention. Heart Vessels 31:655–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Christopoulos G, Christakopoulos GE, Rangan BV et al (2015) Comparison of radiation dose between different fluoroscopy systems in the modern catheterization laboratory: Results from bench testing using an anthropomorphic phantom. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 86:927–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gunja A, Pandey Y, Xie H et al (2016) Image noise reduction technology reduces radiation in a radial-first cardiac catheterization laboratory. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med 18:197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kastrati M, Langenbrink L, Piatkowski M et al (2016) Reducing radiation dose in coronary angiography and angioplasty using image noise reduction technology. Am J Cardiol 118:353–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Maccagni
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Susanna Benincasa
    • 1
  • Barbara Bellini
    • 1
  • Luciano Candilio
    • 1
    • 3
  • Enrico Poletti
    • 4
  • Mauro Carlino
    • 1
  • Antonio Colombo
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Azzalini
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular DepartmentSan Raffaele HospitalMilanItaly
  2. 2.AITRI (Italian Association of Interventional Radiographers)MilanItaly
  3. 3.Cardiology DepartmentHammersmith Hospital Imperial CollegeLondonUK
  4. 4.Universita’ Vita-SaluteMilanItaly
  5. 5.Interventional CardiologySan Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations