Application and Outcomes of Minimal-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Radiation in Peripheral Endovascular Intervention (KAR Endovascular Study).

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Subrata Kar, Clifton Espinoza
{"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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

最小剂量与标准剂量辐射在周围血管内介入治疗中的应用和结果(KAR血管内研究)。
背景:外周血管内介入治疗(PEVI)通常使用标准剂量辐射(SDR)进行,这与辐射水平升高有关。没有研究评估过最小剂量辐射(MDR)治疗PEVI的结果。方法:2019年1月至2020年3月,在某学术医学中心对184例(65±12岁)患者(平均随访3.9±3.6个月)进行前瞻性观察研究,比较PEVI中MDR (n = 24, 13.0%)和SDR (n = 160, 87.0%)的结局。主要终点包括空气温度、剂量面积积(DAP)、透视时间和造影剂使用。次要终点包括全因死亡率、心脏死亡率、急性心肌梗死、急性肾损伤、中风、重复血运重建术、血管夹层/穿孔、主要肢体不良事件、通路部位并发症和并发症的综合。结果:MDR组(68±10年,平均随访4.3±5.2个月)的主要终点明显低于SDR组(65±12年,平均随访3.8±3.2个月;p < 0.001)。关于次要终点,MDR组发生1例血管夹层,而SDR组共发生36例并发症(p = 0.037)。结论:使用MDR治疗PEVI是安全有效的。MDR显示放射参数和透视时间明显下降。因此,在急性或危重肢体缺血时,MDR可作为PEVI的有效替代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease
Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
381
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信