{"title":"Application and Outcomes of Minimal-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Radiation in Peripheral Endovascular Intervention (KAR Endovascular Study).","authors":"Subrata Kar, Clifton Espinoza","doi":"10.3390/jcdd12080284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral endovascular intervention (PEVI) is routinely performed using standard-dose radiation (SDR), which is associated with elevated levels of radiation. No study has evaluated the outcomes of minimal-dose radiation (MDR) in PEVI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a prospective observational study of 184 patients (65 ± 12 years) at an academic medical center from January 2019 to March 2020 (mean follow-up of 3.9 ± 3.6 months) and compared the outcomes of MDR (n = 24, 13.0%) and SDR (n = 160, 87.0%) in PEVI. Primary endpoints included air kerma, dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and contrast use. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, stroke, repeat revascularization, vessel dissection/perforation, major adverse limb event, access site complications, and composite of complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For MDR (68 ± 10 years, mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 5.2 months), the primary endpoints were significantly less than SDR (65 ± 12 years, mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 months; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Regarding the secondary endpoints, one vessel dissection occurred using MDR, while 36 total complications occurred with SDR (<i>p</i> = 0.037).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEVI using MDR was safe and efficacious. MDR showed a significant decrement in radiation parameters and fluoroscopy time. Therefore, MDR can serve as an effective alternative for PEVI in acute or critical limb ischemia.</p>","PeriodicalId":15197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":"12 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12386396/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd12080284","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Peripheral endovascular intervention (PEVI) is routinely performed using standard-dose radiation (SDR), which is associated with elevated levels of radiation. No study has evaluated the outcomes of minimal-dose radiation (MDR) in PEVI.
Methods: We performed a prospective observational study of 184 patients (65 ± 12 years) at an academic medical center from January 2019 to March 2020 (mean follow-up of 3.9 ± 3.6 months) and compared the outcomes of MDR (n = 24, 13.0%) and SDR (n = 160, 87.0%) in PEVI. Primary endpoints included air kerma, dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and contrast use. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, stroke, repeat revascularization, vessel dissection/perforation, major adverse limb event, access site complications, and composite of complications.
Results: For MDR (68 ± 10 years, mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 5.2 months), the primary endpoints were significantly less than SDR (65 ± 12 years, mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 months; p < 0.001). Regarding the secondary endpoints, one vessel dissection occurred using MDR, while 36 total complications occurred with SDR (p = 0.037).
Conclusions: PEVI using MDR was safe and efficacious. MDR showed a significant decrement in radiation parameters and fluoroscopy time. Therefore, MDR can serve as an effective alternative for PEVI in acute or critical limb ischemia.