A randomized comparison of estimated radiation exposure between Low and conventional dose protocol during invasive coronary angiography (ERICA trial): Pilot study

Abstract

PurposeRadiation exposure during coronary angiography is potentially harmful to patients and operators. However, there are limited data on the effects of a low-dose radiation angiography. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a reduced radiation dose protocol during invasive coronary angiography. MethodsOne hundred three consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography were enrolled and randomized to low- or conventional dose protocols (LDP versus CDP). The LDP consists of 10 frames per second during fluoroscopy and half the radiation dose of CDP during cineangiography. Image quality was assessed using a Likert rating scale by an independent radiologist. The radiation dose was estimated with dose-area product (DAP) and air-kerma (AK). ResultsBody weight and waist circumference are well correlated with the level of DAP and AK. Exposure time and total images and frame counts in cineangiography were similar in both groups. There was a marked reduction of the estimated radiation dose (DAP and AK) in the LDP group compared to the CDP group without significant compromise in image quality (total DAP: LDP 1980.1 ± 1163.7 vs. CDP 3434.2 ± 2188.1 μGym2 p = 0.001; total AK: 279.6 ± 159.3 vs. 493.8 ± 280.6 mGy, p < 0.001). ConclusionThe LDP reduced the total estimated radiation dose compared to the CDP without a significant loss of diagnostic information. A LDP may be a viable strategy to protect patients and medical staff from the hazards of radiation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.