Angiographic film quality: Difference between revisions
m Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{WikiDoc Cardiology Network Infobox}} +, -<references /> +{{reflist|2}}, -{{reflist}} +{{reflist|2}}) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
{{CMG}} | {{CMG}} | ||
==Angiographic Film Quality== | ==Angiographic Film Quality== | ||
Revision as of 15:59, 22 August 2013
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]
Angiographic Film Quality
Uninterpretable
The primary endpoint cannot be analyzed secondary to exceedingly poor film exposure or quality (i.e. no images on the film, inadequate injection of contrast material, etc.).
Poor
The primary endpoint can be analyzed but the film quality is poor secondary to under or overexposure, poor panning, poor engagement, poor contrast injection, excess collimation, partial obscuration by diaphragm. The distinction between TIMI grade one and two flow is unobtainable because the cinefilming is of inadequate duration to make the distinction.
Average
Adequate film quality. In some, but not all views, distal panning is adequate to assess TIMI Flow Grade and/or TIMI Myocardial Perfusion Grade.
Good
Good film quality. During most injections there is adequate panning to assess flow to the distal vasculature and collaterals if present.
Excellent
Excellent film quality. There is adequate panning to assess flow to the distal vasculature of the infarct-related artery and collaterals if present. Dye is not injected prior to the beginning of the cinefilming.