Open AccessDoes biplane imaging reduce contrast load, procedural and screening time compared to single‐plane imaging in routine diagnostic coronary angiography?
Author(s) -
Sadick Victoria,
Trinh Linda,
Fernandes Ginella,
Pau Pedro,
Spiteri Michael,
Vu Lan Ahn,
Gurunathan Pratheesh,
Shoy Victoria Lee,
Robinson John
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
radiographer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.484
H-Index - 18
eISSN - 2051-3909
pISSN - 0033-8273
DOI - 10.1002/j.2051-3909.2008.tb00079.x
Subject(s) - biplane , medicine , angiography , contrast (vision) , radiology , radiography , coronary angiography , nuclear medicine , cardiology , myocardial infarction , artificial intelligence , computer science , engineering , aerospace engineering
Diagnostic coronary angiography requires radiographic contrast media that can cause complications such as contrast‐induced nephropathy (CIN). Biplane imaging in diagnostic coronary angiography has been assumed to be beneficial to the patient in reducing total radiographic contrast dosage and examination time, yet there are no definitive studies to support this widely held assumption. A retrospective study was conducted to determine if biplane imaging substantially reduces contrast load, procedural time and screening time in routine diagnostic coronary angiography. Radiographic records of 1156 patients were collected over a period of two years from a major Sydney metropolitan hospital. Patients who underwent a routine diagnostic coronary angiogram and left ventriculogram (LV) were selected on predetermined criteria. The mean total contrast volume showed a small but significant reduction with biplane versus single‐plane imaging (117.5 mL v. 124.3mL, P <0.001). There was a small but significant increase in table time with biplane compared to single‐plane imaging (47.3 min v . 45.2 min, P >0.024). Similarly, a small but significant prolongation in screening time was found with biplane compared to single‐plane imaging (4.8 min v . 4.2 min, P <0.003). The mean number of cine angiography runs was 13.6 in biplane and 9.5 in single‐plane (P <0.001). These results contradict the assumption that biplane cine angiography substantially reduces contrast load, procedural and screening time when compared to single‐plane imaging.