PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15216201

Arterial imaging with computerized fluoroscopy.

Abstract

Computerized fluoroscopy (CF) allows visualization of any segment of the arterial vascular system with intravenous injection of small volumes of standard iodinated contrast media. Because it avoids the risk of arterial puncture and the need for hospitalization, this technique is safer and more economical than standard arteriography. Because of these advantages, CF is likely to expand the role of arteriography in the clinical management of vascular disease. Computerized arteriographic imaging requires an intravenous power injection of 40 to 60 cc of iodinated contrast media. Immediately after injection, six to ten fluoroscopic images (1/15 sec duration) are obtained at 1.5-sec intervals. The first image serves as a mask from which subsequent images are serially subtracted by means of a digital video image processor. The sequence of different images is contrast enhanced and stored on a video disk. Video images are converted to hard copy arteriography with a standard multiformat camera. Technical failures (<5%) may result from patient motion, inadequate peripheral venous access, or extravasation of contrast media. Nearly 600 computerized intravenous arteriograms have been performed in 240 patients with peripheral vascular disease. Qualitative com-parisons with standard arteriograms suggest a close correlation between these two imaging techniques. Computerized fluoroscopy allows the identification of atheromatous plaque ulceration, stenoses, occlusions, and aneurysms. This method has been used to visualize the aortic arch and its branches, the cervical and intracranial vessels, the abdominal aorta, and arteries of the extremities. Computerized fluoroscopy has great potential as a method for safe, simple diagnostic screening and assessment of the postoperative patient.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

William D. Turnipseed, Charles A. Jistretta, Andrew B. Crummy, Charles M. Strother, Joseph F. Sackett, P David Myerowitz, Choring G. Shaw, David L. Ergun. 1981. Arterial imaging with computerized fluoroscopy.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15216201/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗