ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2020
The Effectiveness and Safety between Monoplane and Biplane Imaging During Coronary Angiographies.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiologically Adaptive Soft Millirobot for Atraumatic Endovascular Therapy.Advanced functional materials · 2026Article
- Physiologically Adaptive Soft Millirobot for Atraumatic, Image-Guided Endovascular Therapy.Research square · 2025Article
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Related Radiation Ulcer: Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention Strategy.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2023Article
- Considering ISCHEMIA in the Context of FAME and FAME 2: A Call for the Universal Adoption of Invasive Ischemia-Guided Coronary Intervention Approach in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Article
- Management of Patients With Kidney Disease in Need of Cardiovascular Catheterization: A Scientific Workshop Cosponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
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
backgroundAvoiding unnecessary radiation exposure is the main issue during coronary angiography. Herein, we aimed to investigate whether performing coronary angioplasties with monoplane or biplane imaging most effectively reduces radiation load and shortens the procedure time.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 294 patients who required either coronary angiography or coronary angioplasty. They were divided into groups of only diagnostic angiography, one-, two- or three-vessel diseases. The fluoroscopy dose-area product (DAP), skin dose, fluoroscopy and procedure time were recorded.
resultsAmong the studied patients, 148 received the procedures with monoplane imaging. Compared with the radiation exposure in the monoplane group, there were significant increases in DAP and skin dose in those who received biplane imaging independently of the number of lesions. This phenomenon was also observed in the patients receiving either diagnostic angiography only or coronary interventions. In addition, there were no significant differences in contrast volume and procedure time between the monoplane and biplane groups. Notably, the average fluoroscopy time in those who received biplane imaging was significantly longer than in those who received monoplane imaging in the one- and two-vessel groups, while there were no significant differences in the diagnostic angiography only and three-vessel diseases groups.
conclusionsOur findings indicated that using monoplane imaging resulted in lesser radiation exposure and similar procedure times in coronary diagnostic and interventional settings compared to using biplane imaging. This observation should be verified in prospective randomized studies.
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.