Fusion Imaging Guidance Does Not Affect Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Procedures for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Author:

Postaire Boris1,Nasr Bahaa1ORCID,le Corvec Tom1,Brisard Laurent2,Chaillou Philippe1,Guyomarch Béatrice3,Fellah Imen3,Goueffic Yann34,Maurel Blandine13ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Service de Chirurgie Vasculaire, l’institut du thorax, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France

2. Département d’Anesthésie Réanimation, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France

3. l’institut du thorax, INSERM, CNRS, UNIV Nantes, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France

4. Vascular Center, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Saint Joseph, Paris, France

Abstract

Purpose: Radiation exposure for vascular interventionalists is still a concern. The aim of this study was to assess the value of advanced imaging guidance on radiation exposure and iodinated contrast volume during endovascular treatment of lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD). Materials and Methods: It was a prospective, randomized, monocentric, pilot, single-operator study, conducted from June 2018 to October 2019. Consecutive patients requiring a preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) for a symptomatic LEAD and scheduled for an iliac and/or femoropopliteal endovascular repair in a hybrid room were included. Patients were randomly assigned to the use of fusion imaging guidance (Vessel Navigator®, Philips) or not. The primary endpoint was the dose area product (DAP, Gy.cm²). Secondary endpoints were DAP for fluoroscopy, DAP for fluorography, Air Kerma, fluoroscopy time, volume of contrast, and number of digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Data were expressed in median [Q1-Q3]. Results: In all, 64 of the 77 patients enrolled (34 in fusion group, 30 in control group, 82% men, 65.8 years [61–71]) were included. Groups were similar in terms of comorbidities, BMI (26 kg/cm2 [24–28]), but lesion location were not equally distributed (p=0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding DAP (31.6 Gy.cm2 [23.4; 46.9] for fusion group vs 25.6[16.9; 34.0] Gy.cm2; p=0.07), Air Kerma (160 mGy [96;3365] vs 115 mGy [76;201]; p=0.12, fluoroscopy time (560 seconds [326;960] vs 454 seconds [228;1022]; p=0.44), contrast volume (60 ml [42;80] vs 50 ml [40;66]; p=0.10), or operative time (68 minutes [55;90] vs 46 minutes [30;80]; p=0.06). The median number of DSA was 14 [10–18] in the fusion group versus 11 [6–18]; p=0.049. Conclusion: Fusion imaging guidance does not affect radiation exposure and contrast volume during endovascular revascularisation of iliac and femoropopliteal occlusive disease in a hybrid room environment.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3