In plain language
A pooled analysis of 11 studies found rotational coronary angiography used less contrast and lower patient radiation dose metrics than conventional angiography, with similar procedure time. Staff dose was not measured, though lower patient dose generally lowers scatter to the fluoroscopy team.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Systematic review or meta-analysis, Meta-analysis
- Who was studied
- Patients
- Size
- n = 11 studies
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Rotational angiography was associated with significantly lower contrast volume, dose area product and air kerma than conventional coronary angiography.
Fluoroscopy time was statistically but not clinically significantly longer with rotational angiography; procedure time did not differ.
Pooled analysis included 11 studies with 940 rotational and 976 conventional angiography patients.
Key figures: 11 studies; 940 RA and 976 CA patients
Limits to keep in mind
Abstract only, with no pooled effect sizes reported. Dose metrics are patient-side measures, and staff dose was not measured.
Related research summaries
- The impact of augmented reality on radiation exposure during spine surgery: a systematic review (2026, Systematic review)
- Comparison of radiation exposure associated with transradial and transfemoral access: An updated meta-analysis (2022, Meta-analysis)
- Fluoroscopy-minimization strategy for catheter ablation of Supraventricular Tachycardia by wOmen OPerators: the STOOP Multicentre Registry (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Obesity as a determinant of radiation burden in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (2026, Narrative review)
- Sub-Zero: A Review of the Current Evidence and Evolving Technologies Enabling Zero‑Fluoroscopy Procedures (2026, Narrative review)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.