Abstract
Objective Coronary artery disease (CAD) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality all over the world. Cardiac catheterization is one of the most important treatment modalities in managing CAD. Unfortunately, cardiac catheterization is associated with significant ionizing radiation exposure to both patients and personnel. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a lower video frame rate of 7.5-fps compared with the standard frame rate of 15-fps.
Materials and Methods We retrospectively collected and reviewed data from 84 cardiac catheterizations performed between January and February 2020 at a single tertiary center. The patients were divided into two groups based on frame rate: 15-fps (n=42) and 7.5-fps (n=42). We compared the two groups in terms of demographic data, procedural characteristics, radiation dose, and patient outcomes.
Results Cumulative air kerma was significantly lower in the 7.5-fps group (266.576 mGy) compared to the 15-fps group (524.140 mGy), p=0.0018. Similarly, total dose area product was lower in the 7.5-fps group (15335.617 mGy × cm2 compared to the 15-fps group (34784.095 mG × cm2), p = 0.0003. Despite this, total fluoroscopic time did not differ between the two groups 7.74 minutes in the 15-fps group and 8.462 minutes in the 7.5-fps group, p = 0.4023). In addition, 30-day mortality 0% in both groups and there were no differences in the number of repeat PCIs performed within 30 days (6 in 7.5-fps and 3 in the 15-fps group), p = 0.2899.
Conclusion During cardiac catheterization, a fluoroscopy rate of 7.5-fps is associated with lower radiation dose compared to 15-fps without an associated increase in fluoroscopy time, mortality or repeat PCI. Therefore, interventionalists should consider using a fluoroscopy rate of 7.5-fps during cardiac catheterization.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This was a retrospective study.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This project was approved by the Albany Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
