Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2006 Nov-Dec;69(6):837-43.

[Angiography: safety x economy].

[Article in Portuguese]

Author information

  • 1Instituto Penido Burnier, Campinas, SP, Brazil. rjat@terra.com.br

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost of angiofluoresceinographic examination by using both the least amount of dye as well as digital equipment along with a laser photocopier.

METHODS:

Prospective and comparative study carried out in a group of 70 patients, who underwent an angiographic evaluation with a conventional retinographer injecting 5 ml sodium fluorescein at 10% (control group) as well as a group of 70 patients who underwent an angiographic evaluation with a digital retinographer injecting 2 ml fluorescein at 10% (study group). Arterial pressure, heart rate and oximetry were assessed prior to and after the dye injection. Organic reactions related to the examination were reported. Photograph quality as well as cost between the two techniques were compared.

RESULTS:

Control group patients showed a greater increase in systolic and diastolic arterial pressure. Heart rate, oximetry measurement and adverse reactions did not show any significant statistical differences between both groups. As for the quality of photographs, a better performance was noticed in the control group. As for the cost, the examination carried out in the study group required lower cost and thus saved around 54.8% per examination in relation to the control group.

CONCLUSION:

The examination carried out with a lower dose of fluorescein using digital equipment along with a laser photocopier provided greater stability in the systolic and diastolic arterial pressure. However, it did not have any influence on heart rate, oximetry or adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, syncope and rashes. The quality of photographs was poor although they enabled diagnosis as well as therapy follow-up for those who carried out the examination. Moreover, economically the above procedure represented a gain of 66.26%, against 25.81% in relation to the conventional equipment.

PMID:
17273677
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Scientific Electronic Library Online
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk