Angiografia: segurança x economia / Angiography: safety x economy

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a segurança, eficiência e custos do exame angiofluoresceinográfico utilizando menor dosagem de contraste e aparelho digital com máquina de fotocópia a laser. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo e comparativo entre um grupo de 70 pacientes que foi submetido à avaliação angiográfica com retinógrafo convencional, injetando-se 5 ml de fluoresceína sódica a 10 por cento (grupo controle), e um grupo de 70 pacientes que foi submetido à avaliação angiográfica com retinógrafo digital injetando-se 2 ml de fluoresceína a 10 por cento (grupo estudo). Pressão arterial, freqüência cardíaca e oximetria foram avaliadas antes e após a injeção de contraste. Reações orgânicas, relacionadas ao exame, foram notificadas. A qualidade das fotografias e os custos foram comparados entre as duas técnicas. RESULTADOS: Observou-se que os pacientes do grupo controle apresentaram maior aumento da pressão arterial sistólica e diastólica. Freqüência cardíaca, oximetria e reações adversas não demonstraram diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os dois grupos. Quanto à qualidade das fotografias foi notado melhor desempenho no grupo controle. Quanto aos custos observou-se que o exame realizado no grupo estudo proporcionou economia de aproximadamente 54,8 por cento por exame em relação ao grupo controle. CONCLUSÃO: A realização do exame com menor dosagem de fluoresceína, utilizando equipamento digital com máquina de fotocópia a laser, proporcionou maior estabilidade da pressão arterial sistólica e diastólica, porém não exerceu influência sobre a freqüência cardíaca, oximetria e reações adversas como náusea, vômito, síncope e urticária. A qualidade das fotografias pode ser considerada inferior, porém possibilitou a realização de diagnóstico e orientação terapêutica para quem executou o exame. Economicamente apresentou geração de lucro de 66,26 por cento contra 25,81 por cento do equipamento convencional.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost of angiofluoresceinographic examination by using both the least amount of dye as well as digital equipment along with a laser photocopier. METHODS: Prospective and comparative study carried out in a group of 70 patients, who underwent an angiographic evaluation with a conventional retinographer injecting 5 ml sodium fluorescein at 10 percent (control group) as well as a group of 70 patients who underwent an angiographic evaluation with a digital retinographer injecting 2 ml fluorescein at 10 percent (study group). Arterial pressure, heart rate and oximetry were assessed prior to and after the dye injection. Organic reactions related to the examination were reported. Photograph quality as well as cost between the two techniques were compared. RESULTS: Control group patients showed a greater increase in systolic and diastolic arterial pressure. Heart rate, oximetry measurement and adverse reactions did not show any significant statistical differences between both groups. As for the quality of photographs, a better performance was noticed in the control group. As for the cost, the examination carried out in the study group required lower cost and thus saved around 54.8 percent per examination in relation to the control group. CONCLUSION: The examination carried out with a lower dose of fluorescein using digital equipment along with a laser photocopier provided greater stability in the systolic and diastolic arterial pressure. However, it did not have any influence on heart rate, oximetry or adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, syncope and rashes. The quality of photographs was poor although they enabled diagnosis as well as therapy follow-up for those who carried out the examination. Moreover, economically the above procedure represented a gain of 66.26 percent, against 25.81 percent in relation to the conventional equipment.

[Angiography: safety x economy]. / Angiografia: segurança x economia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost of angiofluoresceinographic examination by using both the least amount of dye as well as digital equipment along with a laser photocopier. METHODS: Prospective and comparative study carried out in a group of 70 patients, who underwent an angiographic evaluation with a conventional retinographer injecting 5 ml sodium fluorescein at 10% (control group) as well as a group of 70 patients who underwent an angiographic evaluation with a digital retinographer injecting 2 ml fluorescein at 10% (study group). Arterial pressure, heart rate and oximetry were assessed prior to and after the dye injection. Organic reactions related to the examination were reported. Photograph quality as well as cost between the two techniques were compared. RESULTS: Control group patients showed a greater increase in systolic and diastolic arterial pressure. Heart rate, oximetry measurement and adverse reactions did not show any significant statistical differences between both groups. As for the quality of photographs, a better performance was noticed in the control group. As for the cost, the examination carried out in the study group required lower cost and thus saved around 54.8% per examination in relation to the control group. CONCLUSION: The examination carried out with a lower dose of fluorescein using digital equipment along with a laser photocopier provided greater stability in the systolic and diastolic arterial pressure. However, it did not have any influence on heart rate, oximetry or adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, syncope and rashes. The quality of photographs was poor although they enabled diagnosis as well as therapy follow-up for those who carried out the examination. Moreover, economically the above procedure represented a gain of 66.26%, against 25.81% in relation to the conventional equipment.