biostudies-literatureMorris PDBritish Heart FoundationHeart Research UKNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)British Heart Foundation Research Training FellowshipE104-12https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC4855622biostudies-literatureUnknown87(4)<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate the value of rotational coronary angiography (RoCA) in the context of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) planning.<h4>Background</h4>As a diagnostic tool, RoCA is associated with decreased patient irradiation and contrast use compared with conventional coronary angiography (CA) and provides superior appreciation of three-dimensional anatomy. However, its value in PCI remains unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>We studied stable coronary artery disease assessment and PCI planning by interventional cardiologists. Patients underwent either RoCA or conventional CA pre-PCI for planning. These were compared with the referral CA (all conventional) in terms of quantitative lesion assessment and operator confidence. An independent panel reanalyzed all parameters.<h4>Results</h4>Six operators performed 127 procedures (60 RoCA, 60 conventional CA, and 7 crossed-over) and assessed 212 lesions. RoCA was associated with a reduction in the number of lesions judged to involve a bifurcation (23 vs. 30 lesions, P < 0.05) and a reduction in the assessment of vessel caliber (2.8 vs. 3.0 mm, P < 0.05). RoCA improved confidence assessing lesion length (P = 0.01), percentage stenosis (P = 0.02), tortuosity (P < 0.04), and proximity to a bifurcation (P = 0.03), particularly in left coronary artery cases. X-ray dose, contrast agent volume, and procedure duration were not significantly different.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Compared with conventional CA, RoCA augments quantitative lesion assessment, enhances confidence in the assessment of coronary artery disease and the precise details of the proposed procedure, but does not affect X-ray dose, contrast agent volume, or procedure duration.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & InterventionsWhen is rotational angiography superior to conventional single-plane angiography for planning coronary angioplasty?PMC4855622FS/16/48/32306RC-PG-0309-100631044821R/134747-11-1CL-2016-04-001FS/12/85/29869Morton ACBrett STaylor JLouis AGunn JPMorris PDBoutong SHeppenstall JfalseWhen is rotational angiography superior to conventional single-plane angiography for planning coronary angioplasty?<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate the value of rotational coronary angiography (RoCA) in the context of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) planning.<h4>Background</h4>As a diagnostic tool, RoCA is associated with decreased patient irradiation and contrast use compared with conventional coronary angiography (CA) and provides superior appreciation of three-dimensional anatomy. However, its value in PCI remains unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>We studied stable coronary artery disease assessment and PCI planning by interventional cardiologists. Patients underwent either RoCA or conventional CA pre-PCI for planning. These were compared with the referral CA (all conventional) in terms of quantitative lesion assessment and operator confidence. An independent panel reanalyzed all parameters.<h4>Results</h4>Six operators performed 127 procedures (60 RoCA, 60 conventional CA, and 7 crossed-over) and assessed 212 lesions. RoCA was associated with a reduction in the number of lesions judged to involve a bifurcation (23 vs. 30 lesions, P < 0.05) and a reduction in the assessment of vessel caliber (2.8 vs. 3.0 mm, P < 0.05). RoCA improved confidence assessing lesion length (P = 0.01), percentage stenosis (P = 0.02), tortuosity (P < 0.04), and proximity to a bifurcation (P = 0.03), particularly in left coronary artery cases. X-ray dose, contrast agent volume, and procedure duration were not significantly different.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Compared with conventional CA, RoCA augments quantitative lesion assessment, enhances confidence in the assessment of coronary artery disease and the precise details of the proposed procedure, but does not affect X-ray dose, contrast agent volume, or procedure duration.2016-01-01T00:00:00Z2016 Mar2024-11-09T01:48:37.694Z2019-03-27T02:12:58ZS-EPMC48556222601272510.1002/ccd.26032