ABSTRACT
We report a 43 years old female who developed an intense precordial pain and arterial hypotension. The patient was admitted to the emergency room in cardiogenic shock. An emergency angiography revealed a total occlusion of the left main coronary artery. An endoluminal coronary angioplasty with the placement of two stents was performed and coronary reperfusion TIMI III was achieved. The patient had a good evolution and one month later, a surgical revascularization was done, to avoid new occlusions. She was discharged in good conditions and in functional capacity I
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Adult , Coronary Disease , Myocardial Infarction , Acidosis , Stents , Emergency Treatment , Myocardial Infarction , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/methods , Myocardial Revascularization/methods , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiologySubject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Cineangiography , Radiation, Ionizing , Radiation Injuries/epidemiology , Age Distribution , Body Mass Index , Body Weight , Coronary DiseaseABSTRACT
Background: Exposure to ionizing radiation is a known hazard of radiological procedures. Aim: To compare the emission of secondary ionizing radiation from two coronary angiographic equipments, one with digital and the other with analog image generation. To evaluate the effectiveness of external radiological protection devices. Material and methods: Environmental and fluoroscopy generated radiation in the cephalic region of the patient was measured during diagnostic coronary angiographies. Ionizing radiation generated in anterior left oblique projection (ALO) and in anterior right oblique projection (ARO) were measured with and without leaded protections. In 19 patients (group 1), a digital equipment was used and in 21 (group 2), an analog equipment. Results: Header radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 1194 ñ 337 and 364 ñ 222 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). During fluoroscopy and with leaded protection generated radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 612 ñ 947 and 70 ñ 61 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). For ALO projection, generated radiation for groups 1 and 2 was 105 ñ 47 and 71 ñ 192 µGray/h respectively (p<0.001). During filming the radiation for ALO projection for groups 1 and 2 was 7252 ñ 9569 and 1671 ñ 2038 µGray/h respectively (p = 0.03). Out of the protection zone, registered radiation during fluoroscopy for groups 1 and 2 was 2800 ñ 1741 and 1318 ñ 954 µGray/h respectively (p < 0.001); during filming, the figures were 15500 ñ 5840 and 18961 ñ 10599 µGray/h respectively (NS). Conclusions: Digital radiological equipment has a lower level of ionizing radiation emission than the analog equipment
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Middle Aged , Cineangiography/radiation effects , Cerebrum/radiation effects , Radiation, Ionizing , Cineangiography/instrumentation , Fluoroscopy , Coronary Angiography/radiation effects , Radiation Exposure , Radiation Protection/instrumentation , Radiation Protection/methodsABSTRACT
Background: Coronary revascularization allows a better survival and quality of life in high risk patients with coronary artery disease. Aim: To report the experience in stent placement as treatment for obstructive atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Patients and methods: A prospective analysis of 105 stent placements. A morphological and quantitative analysis of coronary angiograms, using an electronic caliper, was performed. Patients were followed during their hospital stay and after discharge. Results: In four of 112 coronary lesions, it was not possible to liberate the stent and in 108, it was successfully placed (48 in anterior descending, 19 in circumflex, 36 in right coronary arteries and 5 in saphenous aortocoronary by-pass. Lesions with stent implantation were type A in 11 percent, B1 in 30 percent, B2 in 44 percent and C in 15 percent. Reference diameter was 3.13 ñ 0.58 mm. After placement, luminal diameter increased from 0 95 ñ 0.43 to 2.99 ñ 0.46 mm, with a final stenosis of 7.2 ñ 10.1 percent. Angiographic success was obtained in 99 percent and procedure success in 98 percent. Hospital mortality was 0.98 percent. After a mean of eight months follow up, 91 percent of patients is free of major cardiac events. In 17 percent angina recurred and 5 percent required a new revascularization. There were no late cardiac deaths, acute stent thrombosis or infarction in relation to the treated lesion. Conclusions: In these patients, stent placement has had excellent immediate and late results
Subject(s)
Humans , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Blood Vessel Prosthesis , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/methods , Coronary Artery Disease , Stents , Risk Factors , Coronary Angiography , Clinical Evolution , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation , Myocardial RevascularizationABSTRACT
Background: The activity over cellular genetic pattern of ionizing radiation can produce stochastic and unspecific damages. Interventional cardiology operators have increasing exposure times to ionizing radiation and there is no information about the real protection conferred by simple radiological protection devices. Aim: To assess the magnitude of secondary ionizing radiation exposure of operators during conventional coronary arteriography, evaluating the radiation exposure during different beam projections and the usefulness of leaded aprons. Material and methods: Ionizing radiation received by operators during coronary arteriography was measured using a Geiger-Müller Victoreen model 490 counter. The device was placed in the ventral region, covered by the leaded apron and in the unprotected dorsal region. Radiation was measured in right and left projections during fluoroscopy and shooting. Results: In right projection, the intensity of ionizing radiation in ventral and dorsal regions was 1.24 ñ 1.1 and 2.9 ñ 4 mR/h respectively (p= 0.08). In left projection, the figures were 2.95 ñ 3 and 7.86 ñ 7.2 mR/h respectively (p= 0.001). During shooting in left projection the radiation exposure in ventral and dorsal regions was 9.66 ñ 6.7 and 32.8 ñ 27 mR/h respectively (p< 0.001). During shooting in right projection that figures were 10.1 ñ 16 and 20.7 ñ 39.8 mR/h respectively (p= 0.09). No correlation between radiation exposure and patients surface area was observed. Conclusions: Secondary radiation received by operators is higher during shooting and in left projections. Leaded apron confers a partial protection for ventral region, and great fluctuations in the magnitude of radiation exposure were recorded. Unprotected dorsal region receives a greater amount of radiation in left projections