Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2016
Value of Image Fusion in Coronary Angiography for the Detection of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computed Tomography Cardiac Angiography Before Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients With Previous Bypass Surgery: The BYPASS-CTCA Trial.Circulation · 2023Trial
- Improved stereo perception in coronary angiography using the X-ray tube as the viewpoint and validation with 3D printed models.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
- Coronary CTA Would Facilitate Invasive Angiography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Coronary Bypass Grafting History.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- The BYPASS-CTCA Study: the value of Computed Tomography Cardiac Angiography (CTCA) in improving patient-related outcomes in patients with previous bypass operation undergoing invasive coronary angiography: Study Protocol of a Randomised Controlled Trial.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
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
backgroundCoronary angiography is more complex in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG). Image fusion is a new technology that allows the overlay of a computed tomography (CT) three-dimension (3D) model with fluoroscopic images in real time. METHODS AND
resultsThis single-center prospective study included 66 previous CABG patients undergoing coronary and bypass graft angiography. Image fusion coronary angiographies (fusion group, 20 patients) were compared to conventional coronary angiographies (control group, 46 patients). The fusion group included patients for whom a previous chest CT scan with contrast was available. For patients in this group, aorta and CABG were reconstructed in 3D from CT acquisitions and merged in real time with fluoroscopic images. The following parameters were compared: time needed to localize the CABG; procedure duration; air kerma (AK); dose area product (DAP); and volume of contrast media injected. Results are expressed as median. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in patient demographics and procedure characteristics (access site, number of bypass to be found, and interventional cardiologist's experience). The time to localize CABG was significantly shorter in the fusion group (7.3 versus 12.4 minutes; P=0.002), as well as the procedure duration (20.6 versus 25.6 minutes; P=0.002), AK (610 versus 814 mGy; P=0.02), DAP (4390 versus 5922.5 cGy·cm(2); P=0.02), and volume of iodinated contrast media (85 versus 116 cc; P=0.002).
conclusions3D image fusion improves the CABG detection in coronary angiography and reduces the time necessary to localize CABG, total procedure time duration, radiation exposure, and volume of contrast media.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.