Robotically performed diagnostic coronary angiography.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of robotic diagnostic coronary angiography. BACKGROUND: Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with marked reductions in physician radiation exposure. Development of robotic diagnostic coronary angiography might similarly impact occupational safety. METHODS: Stable patients referred for coronary angiography were prospectively enrolled. After obtaining vascular access, diagnostic catheters were manually advanced over a wire to the ascending aorta. All subsequent catheter movements were performed robotically. The primary endpoint was procedural success, defined as robotic completion of coronary angiography without conversion to a manual procedure and the absence of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-cardiac death, cardiac arrest, or stroke) and major angiographic complications (coronary/aortic dissection or embolization). The primary hypothesis was that the observed rate of the primary endpoint, evaluated at the completion of coronary angiography, would meet a pre-specified performance goal of 74.5%. RESULTS: Among 46 consecutive patients (age 67 ± 12 years; 69.6% male), diagnostic coronary angiography was completed robotically in all cases without the need for manual conversion and without any MACE or major angiographic complications. Thus, procedural success was 100%, which was significantly higher than the pre-specified performance goal (p < 0.001). Robotic coronary angiography was completed using 2 [2, 3] catheters per case with a median procedural time of 15 [11, 20] minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic diagnostic coronary angiography was performed with 100% procedural success and no observed complications. These results support the performance of future studies to further explore robotic coronary angiography.

Impact of patient obesity on radiation doses received by scrub technologists during coronary angiography.

BACKGROUND: The impact of patient obesity on scrub technologist radiation dose during coronary angiography has not been adequately studied. METHODS: Real-time radiation exposure data were prospectively collected during consecutive coronary angiography cases. Patient radiation dose was estimated by dose area product (DAP). Technologist radiation dose was recorded by a dosimeter as the personal dose equivalent (Hp (10)). Patients were categorized according to their body mass index (BMI): <25.0, lean; 25.0-29.9, overweight; ≥30.0, obese. The study had two phases: in Phase I (N = 351) standard radiation protection measures were used; and in Phase II (N = 268) standard radiation protection measures were combined with an accessory lead shield placed between the technologist and patient. RESULTS: In 619 consecutive coronary angiography procedures, significant increases in patient and technologist radiation doses were observed across increasing patient BMI categories (p < 0.001 for both). Compared to lean patients, patient obesity was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in DAP (73.0 [52.7, 127.5] mGy × cm2 vs 43.6 [25.1, 65.7] mGy × cm2, p < 0.001) and a 1.8-fold increase in technologist radiation dose (1.1 [0.3, 2.7] µSv vs 0.6 [0.1, 1.6] µSv, p < 0.001). Compared to Phase I, use of an accessory lead shield in Phase II was associated with a 62.5% reduction in technologist radiation dose when used in obese patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During coronary angiography procedures, patient obesity was associated with a significant increase in scrub technologist radiation dose. This increase in technologist radiation dose in obese patients may be mitigated by use of an accessory lead shield.