Impact of biplane versus single-plane imaging on radiation dose, contrast load and procedural time in coronary angioplasty.

Radiology Department, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW Australia. <>
The British journal of radiology (Impact Factor: 2.11). 12/2009; 83(989):379-94. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/21696839
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Coronary angioplasties can be performed with either single-plane or biplane imaging techniques. The aim of this study was to determine whether biplane imaging, in comparison to single-plane imaging, reduces radiation dose and contrast load and shortens procedural time during (i) primary and elective coronary angioplasty procedures, (ii) angioplasty to the main vascular territories and (iii) procedures performed by operators with various levels of experience. This prospective observational study included a total of 504 primary and elective single-vessel coronary angioplasty procedures utilising either biplane or single-plane imaging. Radiographic and clinical parameters were collected from clinical reports and examination protocols. Radiation dose was measured by a dose-area-product (DAP) meter intrinsic to the angiography system. Our results showed that biplane imaging delivered a significantly greater radiation dose (181.4+/-121.0 Gycm(2)) than single-plane imaging (133.6+/-92.8 Gycm(2), p<0.0001). The difference was independent of case type (primary or elective) (p = 0.862), vascular territory (p = 0.519) and operator experience (p = 0.903). No significant difference was found in contrast load between biplane (166.8+/-62.9 ml) and single-plane imaging (176.8+/-66.0 ml) (p = 0.302). This non-significant difference was independent of case type (p = 0.551), vascular territory (p = 0.308) and operator experience (p = 0.304). Procedures performed with biplane imaging were significantly longer (55.3+/-27.8 min) than those with single-plane (48.9+/-24.2 min, p = 0.010) and, similarly, were not dependent on case type (p = 0.226), vascular territory (p = 0.642) or operator experience (p = 0.094). Biplane imaging resulted in a greater radiation dose and a longer procedural time and delivered a non-significant reduction in contrast load than single-plane imaging. These findings did not support the commonly perceived advantages of using biplane imaging in single-vessel coronary interventional procedures.

  • Nature Reviews Neurology 12/2011; 8(1):10-1. · 15.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This study investigates the factors associated with higher doses for both single-plane and biplane procedures and establishes centre-specific 75th percentile levels. Methods: 602 patients undergoing coronary angiography in a large hospital at Sydney were recruited to the study, and causal agents for high radiation doses were investigated: gender, procedural complexity, severity of coronary artery disease, presence of coronary bypass grafts, entry approach (radial or femoral), level of operator experience; and a single-plane or a biplane imaging system was employed. Results: The 75th percentile levels were calculated. The results demonstrated that, for both systems, higher exposures were associated with patients who were male (p<0.001), had coronary vessel disease (p<0.001) and had a history of coronary bypass grafts (p<0.001). In addition, for biplane systems, procedural complexity (p<0.001), types of entry approach (p<0.001) and levels of operator experience (p<0.001) significantly impacted upon the dose. Biplane examinations recorded higher doses than single-plane procedures (p<0.001) and the inclusion of left-sided ventriculography contributed to the overall dose by up to 10%. Conclusion: The 75th percentile levels in this study represent the tentative reference levels and are 48.9, 44.2 and 56 Gy cm(2) for all exposures, single-plane- and biplane-specific exposures, respectively, and compare favourably with the diagnostic reference level values established elsewhere internationally, with only the UK and Irish data being lower. Advances in knowledge: Specific agents have been identified for dose-reducing strategies and the importance of operator training is highlighted. The assumption that biplane procedures may reduce the patient dose should be treated with caution.
    The British journal of radiology 07/2013; 86(1027):20120028. · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiac imaging techniques that use ionizing radiation have become an integral part of current cardiology practice. However, concern has arisen that ionizing radiation exposure, even at the low levels used for medical imaging, is associated with the risk of cancer. From a single diagnostic cardiac imaging procedure, such risks are low. On a population basis, however, malignancies become more likely on account of stochastic effects being more probable as the number of procedures performed increases. In light of this, and owing to professional and industrial commitment to the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, over the last decade major strides have been made to reduce radiation dose in cardiac imaging. Dose-reduction strategies have been most pronounced in cardiac computed tomography. This was important since computed tomography has rapidly become a widely used diagnostic alternative to invasive coronary angiography, and initial protocols were associated with relatively high radiation exposures. Advances have also been made in nuclear cardiology and in invasive coronary angiography, and these reductions in patient exposure have all been achieved with maintenance of image quality and accuracy. Improvements in imaging camera technology, image acquisition protocols and image processing have lead to reductions in patient radiation exposure without compromising imaging diagnostic accuracy.
    Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 01/2012; 10(1):89-104.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 28, 2014