Comparison of Contrast Volume, Radiation Dose, Fluoroscopy Time, and Procedure Time in Previously Published Studies of Rotational Versus Conventional Coronary Angiography
Conventional coronary angiography (CA) with static imaging is limited by the ability to properly select the optimal acquisition angle, vessel foreshortening, and significant radiation exposure. Rotational coronary angiography (RA) acquires coronary images in a multitude of viewing angles during a single injection by means of a moving gantry that rapidly completes a predefined arc. This study compares procedural characteristics of CA and RA. Electronic search of databases such as OVID, Medline, and PubMed was conducted to identify studies comparing procedural characteristics of CA and RA. End points for analysis included contrast volume, radiation dose by dose area product, radiation dose by air kerma, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time. Studies were assessed for quality and bias and were included if they compared coronary imaging of both the right and left coronary systems with CA and RA, included one of the end points of interest, and were in English. A total of 11 studies consisting of 940 patients who underwent RA and 976 who underwent CA were included in the final analysis. Contrast volume, radiation dose by dose area product, and radiation dose by air kerma were all found to be significantly lower with RA compared with CA. There was a statistically significant increase in fluoroscopy time, although this was not clinically significant, and there was no difference in procedure time. RA angiography is a feasible alternative to CA and offers reductions in contrast used and radiation exposure.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2026.
All research outputs
#11,900,073
of 34,359,530 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#7,371
of 15,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,698
of 308,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#44
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,359,530 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
