Search

Purpose: The aim was to compare a protocol of uterine artery embolization (UAE) consisting in three digital subtraction angiographies (DSAs)-Group A, with a protocol based on a single DSA-Group B., Materials and Methods: This is a single-center prospective randomized study enrolling 20 women (mean age 41 years, range 22-55 years) with uterine fibroids treated with UAE, from January 2015 to February 2016. All UAEs were performed by two interventional radiologists using the same angiography machine. Protocol of Group A consisted in three DSA runs (non-selective pelvic view and selective uterine views before and after embolization). Protocol of Group B consisted in 1 DSA run: selective UA angiography before embolization. (Fluoroscopic roadmap was used for UA catheterization; fluoroscopy storage was used as control after embolization.) Each patient was randomized to receive Protocol A in one pelvic side and Protocol B on the other., Results: All patients received bilateral UAE. Mean fluoroscopy time for UA catheterization was 11.3 ± 3.7 s. (Protocol A) and 9.93 ± 2.99 s. (Protocol B) (p = 0.19). Fluoroscopy dose for catheterization and embolization was not different between both protocols (p = 0.14). Identification of the UA origin score was similar in both protocols (median error = 0, p = 0.79). Mean dose area product (DAP) was 40859 mGy/cm 2 (Protocol A) and 28839 mGy/cm 2 (Protocol B) (p = 0.003). Mean effective dose (ED) decreased from Protocol A (14.6 mSv) to Protocol B (9.2 mSv; - 37%). Mean absorbed dose (AD) to ovaries and uterus, respectively, decreased of 53% and 55% from Protocol A to Protocol B., Conclusion: Reducing the number of DSA runs from 3 to 1 during UAE allows at least a 30% reduction on radiation exposure, without compromising technical outcomes., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).)

The world of cardiac imaging is proposing to physicians an ever-increasing spectrum of options and tools with the disadvantages of patients presently submitted to multiple, sequential, time-consuming, and costly diagnostic procedures and tests, sometimes with contradicting results. In the last two decades, the CCTA has evolved into a valuable diagnostic test in today's patient care, changing the official existing guidelines and clinical practice with a pivotal role to exclude significant CAD, in the referral of patients to the Cath-Lab, in the follow-up after coronary revascularization, and finally in the cardiovascular risk stratification.