Right lateral versus left lateral view for forearm coronary angiography. An operator radiation exposure and image quality study

• Published in: Journal of radiological protection 2017-06, Vol.37 (2), p.450-458
• Main Authors: Rodríguez-González, Elena, Castanedo-Álvarez, Miguel, León-Aliz, Ebrey, Benitez-Peyrat, Jaime, Oteo, Juan Francisco, Hernández-Hernández, Mónica, Montes-Uruén, Alfredo, Gorigolzarri-Artaza, Josebe, Restrepo-Córdoba, María Alejandra, Pifarré-Martínez, Xavier, Goicolea, Javier, García-Touchard, Arturo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Coronary Angiography - methods; coronary artery disease; Female; fluoroscopy; Forearm - radiation effects; Humans; Male; Occupational Exposure - analysis; Occupational Exposure - prevention & control; Prospective Studies; Radiation Dosage; radiation dosimetry; Radiation Exposure - analysis; Radiation Exposure - prevention & control; Radiation Protection - methods; Radiography, Interventional - methods; Radiometry - methods; Scattering, Radiation
• ISSN: 0952-4746; 1361-6498
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/aa6b76

Objectives. The aim of this study was to analyze the operator radiation exposure (ORE) and the image quality in a coronary angiography (CA) of the standard left lateral view (LLV) and compare it with an alternative right lateral view (RLV). Background. Interventional cardiologists are exposed to high doses of scatter radiation, especially in angulated projections. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients who underwent diagnostic CA. A standard +90° LLV and an alternative RLV (−90°) were done in each patient with the same protocol. The operator effective dose rate (mSv/h) was determined for each projection with digital dosimeters located in the collar, waist and knee. The image quality of both the LLV and RLV was analyzed and compared to a standard projection. Results. 116 patients were enrolled; left coronary artery (LCA) was assessed in 52 patients and right coronary artery (RCA) in 64 patients. The ORE was significantly lower with the RLV compared to the conventional LLV with a maximum ORE reduction of 91.5% in the operator waist (LLV: 6.84 mSv h−1 versus RLV: 0.58 mSv h−1, p < 0.001). No significant differences in image quality were observed for the RCA in both projections. For the LCA, a slight loss of quality was observed with the RLV. Conclusions. −90° RLV is associated with a significant decrease in ORE compared to the conventional +90° LLV without losing image resolution for the RCA and resulting in a slight quality loss for the LCA evaluation. The RLV should be the first choice for RCA evaluation. For the LCA, the RLV loss of resolution should be balanced with the benefit of minimizing ORE, mainly in cases with long fluoroscopy times, such as complex percutaneous coronary interventional procedures.