Strategies for radiation exposure-sparing in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures.

BACKGROUND: Minimizing radiation exposure during x-ray fluoroscopically guided procedures is critical to patients and to medical personnel. Tableside adjustment of x-ray image acquisition parameters can vary the fluoroscopic radiation exposure rate. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of adjusting four tableside controllable image acquisition parameters on x-ray fluoroscopic radiation exposure rate. METHODS: We made fluoroscopic exposures of a standard radiologic phantom to measure radiation exposure rates as kerma•area product per second of exposure and milligray per x-ray pulse under all possible combinations of detector zoom mode, collimated image field size, fluoroscopy dose mode, and fluoroscopy pulse frequency. RESULTS: Kerma•area product per second was linearly proportional to pulse frequency. Selecting larger detector zoom modes, smaller collimated image field sizes and low dose fluoroscopy mode each decreased exposure rate. We found a > 20-fold variation in dose rates over the range of acquisition parameter combinations. CONCLUSIONS: Selecting the most appropriate fluoroscopy acquisition parameters enables physician operators to adjust radiation exposure rates over a large range. Judicious selection of acquisition parameters can reduce patient and medical personnel radiation exposure by as much as 95% compared to "standard" fluoroscopy protocol settings.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 2: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure to clinical personnel. While the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. ACC leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. "Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging - Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness" is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. "Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology" addresses radiation physics, dosimetry and detrimental biologic effects. "Part II: Radiologic Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection" covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy). For each modality, it includes the determinants of radiation exposure and techniques to minimize exposure to both patients and to medical personnel.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 1: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways Developed in Collaboration With Mended Hearts.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure for clinical personnel. Although the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. The American College of Cardiology leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging: Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology addresses the issue of medical radiation exposure, the basics of radiation physics and dosimetry, and the basics of radiation biology and radiation-induced adverse effects. Part II: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy) and will be published in the next issue of the Journal.

The Pathophysiologic Basis of Managing Chronic Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Chronic coronary heart disease encompasses a broad spectrum of disorders that range in severity from trivial to imminently life-threatening. The primary care physician encounters coronary disease at all stages. The number of available diagnostic and therapeutic options for evaluating and treating coronary disease is vast, presenting a complex selection strategy challenge when making choices for the individual patient. The primary care physician is responsible to tailor evaluation and management strategies to each individual patient based on his/her particular disease characteristics. There are many categories of diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions that have been shown at the population level in clinical trials to improve patient outcomes. Blindly applying the findings of all demonstrated studies and therapies to a patient with coronary disease would saddle him/her with an unsustainable burden of diagnostic tests and therapies. The core principle of the approach outlined in this article is to tailor diagnostic and therapeutic choices to the operative pathophysiology that drives a particular patient's disorder. This introductory article is intended to provide a conceptual framework for studying and applying the specialized topics discussed in the articles that follow.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization : a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale with the Amplatzer Cribriform septal occluder.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the feasibility of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure utilizing the Amplatzer multifenestrated Cribriform atrial septal occluder device. BACKGROUND: This device recently became available and may offer unique advantages for closure of PFO. METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients who underwent closure of PFO with the Cribriform device for a variety of indications under intracardiac echocardiographic and fluoroscopic guidance were studied. The degree of shunting was quantified pre- and postprocedure by echocardiography using both Doppler and agitated saline administration. The results with this device were compared to the prior 19 patients who underwent closure with a CardioSeal device. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 52 years and 47% were female. Indications for closure were paradoxical embolism in 17 patients, and hypoxemia due to right to left shunt in 2 patients. The postprocedure bubble contrast study showed a marked improvement in right to left shunting with 13 patients (68%) demonstrating no shunt flow, 4 (21%) having trace shunting, and 2 (11%) mild shunting. There were no device-related complications. The mean procedure time was 28 +/- 10 min. In comparison to the CardioSeal device, a trend was apparent in terms of a greater percentage of patients with immediate closure with the Cribriform device, although a similar percentage of defect closure was seen at 6 months with both devices. Procedure time was shorter with the Cribriform device, related in part to the reduced need for balloon sizing. CONCLUSIONS: This initial experience suggests a number of favorable characteristics of the Amplatzer Cribriform device for PFO closure.

FilterWire distal embolic protection device for vein graft stenting: initial single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significant incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to distal vessel embolization. The FilterWire distal embolic protection device has recently been approved as an adjunct to SVG intervention. We report here our initial experience in a single center in 30 consecutive patients using this device in SVG stenting. HYPOTHESIS: This study examined the outcomes and complications associated with these devices, as well as whether proficiency with the devices increased with greater experience and whether there were measurable outcome differences between devices. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients in whom a FilterWire device was placed at our hospital between June 2001 and June 2004. RESULTS: The device was successfully deployed in 29 of 30 patients, and all patients were stented successfully. Overall MACE rate was 6.6%, consistent with reports in larger multicenter clinical trials. Transient decreases in flow were noted while the device was in place in six patients, but improved in five patients with device removal. CONCLUSIONS: This early experience in a single center using FilterWire embolic protection indicates that excellent clinical results can be obtained by the adoption of filter protection for SVG intervention, without evidence for a detrimental learning curve.