Prepping the Environment

  • Ahmad M. Thabet
  • I. Paul SinghEmail author


Noninvasive imaging studies to evaluate neurovascular anatomy/pathology such as computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) have advanced significantly over the last few years; but interventional cerebral/spinal angiography is still the gold standard study for vascular imaging, achieving the best quality images and assessing the blood flow dynamics within the brain and spinal cord. There are many indications of interventional cerebral/spinal angiography, including diagnosis and treatment of vascular stenosis/occlusion, cerebral aneurysms, arteriovenous malformations, dural arteriovenous fistulas, malignancy, and multiple other vascular anomalies. Using a systematic, evidence-based approach while preparing for cerebral/spinal angiography can help minimize the uncommon, yet potential risks of this procedure.


  1. 1.
    Tank VH, et al. The endovascular suite. In: Prestigiacomo CJ, editor. Endovascular surgical neuroradiology/theory and clinical practice. New York: Thieme; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardella JF, et al. Optimal resources for the examination and endovascular treatment of the peripheral and visceral vascular systems. AHA Intercouncil Report on Peripheral and Visceral Angiographic and Interventional Laboratories. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(9 Pt 2):S517–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harrigan MR, Deveikis JP. Angiography suite. Handbook of cerebrovascular disease and neurointerventional technique. New York: Springer; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergeron P, et al. Radiation doses to patients in neurointerventional procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994;15(10):1809–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boone JM, Levin DC. Radiation exposure to angiographers under different fluoroscopic imaging conditions. Radiology. 1991;180(3):861–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards M. Development of radiation protection standards. Radiographics. 1991;11(4):699–712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuon E, Schmitt M, Dahm JB. Significant reduction of radiation exposure to operator and staff during cardiac interventions by analysis of radiation leakage and improved lead shielding. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89(1):44–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norbash AM, Busick D, Marks MP. Techniques for reducing interventional neuroradiologic skin dose: tube position rotation and supplemental beam filtration. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17(1):41–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morris P. Radiation risks and safety. Practical neuroangiography. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madigan J. Vascular access: Guide catheter selection, usage, and compatibility. In: Murphy K, Robertson F, editors. Interventional neuroradiology. Lee MJ, Watkinson AF, series editors. Techniques in IR series. New York: Springer;2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahn SH, Prince EA, Dubel GJ. Basic neuroangiography: review of technique and perioperative patient care. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2013;30(3):225–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology. General considerations for endovascular surgical neuroradiologic procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(8 Suppl):S1–3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murphy K, Wyse G. Diagnostic cerebral angiography and groin access and closure. In: Murphy K, Robertson F, editors. Interventional neuroradiology. Lee MJ, Watkinson AF, series editors. Techniques in IR series. New York: Springer;2014.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferguson JJ, et al. The relation of clinical outcome to dissection and thrombus formation during coronary angioplasty. Heparin Registry Investigators. J Invasive Cardiol. 1995;7(1):2–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chew DP, et al. Defining the optimal activated clotting time during percutaneous coronary intervention: aggregate results from 6 randomized, controlled trials. Circulation. 2001;103(7):961–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cipolle RJ, et al. Heparin kinetics: variables related to disposition and dosage. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;29(3):387–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Narins CR, et al. Relation between activated clotting time during angioplasty and abrupt closure. Circulation. 1996;93(4):667–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Delaney A, Carter A, Fisher M. The prevention of anaphylactoid reactions to iodinated radiological contrast media: a systematic review. BMC Med Imaging. 2006;6:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lasser EC, et al. Pretreatment with corticosteroids to alleviate reactions to intravenous contrast material. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(14):845–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greenberger P, et al. Administration of radiographic contrast media in high-risk patients. Investig Radiol. 1980;15(6 Suppl):S40–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenberger PA, et al. Emergency administration of radiocontrast media in high-risk patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1986;77(4):630–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maddox TG. Adverse reactions to contrast material: recognition, prevention, and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2002;66(7):1229–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morcos SK. Prevention of contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity after angiographic procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(1):13–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schweiger MJ, et al. Prevention of contrast induced nephropathy: recommendations for the high risk patient undergoing cardiovascular procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69(1):135–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heiserman JE, et al. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994;15(8):1401–7. Discussion 1408–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leffers AM, Wagner A. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography. A retrospective study of complication rate and patient risk factors. Acta Radiol. 2000;41(3):204–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Willinsky RA, et al. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology. 2003;227(2):522–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Earnest FT, et al. Complications of cerebral angiography: prospective assessment of risk. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984;142(2):247–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dawkins AA, et al. Complications of cerebral angiography: a prospective analysis of 2,924 consecutive procedures. Neuroradiology. 2007;49(9):753–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaufmann TJ, et al. Complications of diagnostic cerebral angiography: evaluation of 19,826 consecutive patients. Radiology. 2007;243(3):812–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pryor JC, et al. Complications of diagnostic cerebral angiography and tips on avoidance. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 1996;6(3):751–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryWestchester Medical Center/New York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Neurosurgery, Neurology, and RadiologyMount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations