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)。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Subrata Kar, Clifton Espinoza
{"title":"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)。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。

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

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

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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