ArticleEuropean radiology2015
Multiple procedures and cumulative individual radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: A long-term retrospective study.
Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Training, Radiation Protection, and Fluoroscopy Utilization Practices Among US Therapeutic Endoscopists.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Article
- Article
- Study protocol for a matter of heart: a qualitative study of patient factors driving overuse of cardiac catheterisation.BMJ open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVarious studies address discrepancies between guideline recommendations for coronary angiographies and clinical practice. While the issue of the appropriateness of recurrent angiographies was studied focusing on the role of the cardiologist, little is known about individual patients' histories and the associated radiation exposures.
methodsWe analyzed all patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in an academic teaching practice who underwent at least one angiography with or without intervention between 2004 and 2009. All performed angiographies in these patients were analyzed and rated by three physicians for appropriateness levels according to cardiology guidelines. Typical exposure data from the medical literature were used to estimate individual radiation exposure.
resultsIn the cohort of 147 patients, a total of 441 procedures were analyzed: between 1981 and 2009, three procedures were performed per patient (range 1-19) on average. Appropriateness ratings were 'high/intermediate' in 71%, 'low/no' in 27.6% and data were insufficient for ratings in 1.4%. Procedures with 'low/no' ratings were associated with potentially avoidable exposures of up to 186 mSv for single patients.
conclusionsUsing retrospective data, we exemplify the potential benefit of guideline adherence to decrease patients' radiation exposures. KEY POINTS: • A cohort study of 147 patients showed 27.6% low appropriateness procedures. • Potentially avoidable radiation exposure cumulated up to about 186 mSv for single patients. • Predisposing factors were prior bypass surgery and first treatment in a tertiary centre. • 7.5% of the patients received 58% of the potentially avoidable radiation exposure. • The benefits of guideline adherence in decreasing patient radiation exposure are exemplified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26002124What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.