ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019
Bi-plane and single plane angiography: a study to compare contrast usage and radiation doses for adult cardiac patients in diagnostic studies.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. 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.
- Effect of Different Anthropometric Body Indexes on Radiation Exposure in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Catheterisation and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Agreement between single plane and biplane derived angiographic fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis.Heart and vessels · 2022Article
- National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Kidney Injury (NCDR) vs. Mehran risk models for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy and need for dialysis after coronary angiography in a German patient cohort.Journal of nephrology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: This study compares the performance of bi-plane coronary angiography against single plane angiography in terms of the volume of contrast used (ml) and the total dose-area product (DAP) (μGym
methods: A total of 5176 adult diagnostic cardiac angiograms from a hospital in Brisbane, Australia were retrospectively studied. Patients with aortograms, iliac or femoral artery imaging, and stenting or graft interventions were excluded. Student's t-tests were used to compare means, and confounding variables were compared using multivariate regression. This quantified the effects of bi-plane system use holding constant other factors (e.g.) body mass index (BMI), age, room, sex, number of digital acquisitions and fluoro time.
results: Bi-plane imaging had an average difference in mean contrast use of -15.1 ml [15.5% 95% confidence interval (CI) (-13.2, -17.0) p<0.001], multivariate regression demonstrated a -27.0 ml reduction in contrast use [28% 95% CI (-29.0, -24.83) p<0.0001] when the significant effects of fluoro time, number of digital acquisitions, BMI and sex were held constant. Bi-plane imaging had an average difference in mean DAP of + 887.1 μGym
conclusion: These results demonstrate that bi-plane imaging uses less contrast media than single-plane imaging for coronary angiography at the expense of more radiation. Bi-plane imaging may be preferable in patients with renal impairment, however single plane imaging may be preferable in those without renal impairment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: This is a large cohort and statistically comprehensive study comparing bi-plane and single plane coronary angiography. Other studies 4, 5, 6, 12 have used Student's t-tests to measure the difference between means, however this provides no causative information on the differences found. This study provides a view of the causative impact of bi-plane usage on DAP and contrast use via multivariate regression modelling.
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.