Purpose: To compare the effects of a one-session procedure (ie, diagnostic angiography immediately followed by intervention) versus a two-session procedure (ie, diagnostic angiography and intervention in two separate sessions) on interventional therapy in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD).
Materials and methods: Interventional therapy was performed immediately after diagnostic angiography in one session in 228 patients (group 1) and in a chronologically separate, later session in another 43 patients (group 2). The retrospectively captured parameters were Fontaine stage, TransAtlantic InterSociety Consensus II criteria, angiographic severity, type, technical success and complication rates, examination times, volume of contrast media, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time for intervention.
Results: There were no between-group differences in clinical and interventional parameters. In group 1 there were 340 interventions performed, and there were 61 in group 2 with an interval before intervention of 1-55 days. The groups showed comparable success rates (92.6% vs 91.8%; P = .79) and complication rates (5.7% vs 4.65%; P = 1.0). The examination times were similar at 82.6 minutes +/- 40.5 and 91.3 minutes +/- 69.9, respectively (P = .92). Volume of contrast media (301.7 mL +/- 81.3 vs 459.2 mL +/- 123.7) and radiation exposure (140.5 Gy/cm(2) +/- 152.1 vs 304.7 Gy/cm(2) +/- 217.4) were significantly lower in group 1 (P < .001 each). Fluoroscopy times trended lower in group 1.
Conclusions: In patients with PAOD, interventional therapy of iliac and femoropopliteal artery lesions performed in the same session as diagnostic angiography yields technical success and complication rates comparable to those seen with a two-session procedure, but is associated with significantly less contrast media use and radiation exposure.
Copyright 2010 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.