Prospective assessment of the value of a chest radiograph in the performance of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation in adults.

Stables, Rod; Trotman‐Dickenson, Beatrice

doi:10.1136/hrt.72.6.540

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a meta-analysis of studies performed on European and North American patient populations, it was concluded that routine preoperative chest radiography was superfluous [5]. Likewise, chest radiography before coronary catheterization has proved to have very little clinical value, causing none of 240 coronary arteriograms to be postponed or cancelled in one study [15] and an influence on the procedure in only 12 of 340 arteriograms in another study [16]. In that study, chest radiography before coronary angiography was significantly more helpful in congenital heart disease and dilated cardiomyopathy than in ischemic heart disease [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Retrospective Analysis of the Clinical Impact of 939 Chest Radiographs Using the Medical Records

Geijer

Ivarsson

Göthlin

2012

Radiology Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Between one-third and half of all radiology examinations worldwide are probably chest studies. The aim of the current study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical influence of chest radiography. Methods. In a tertiary referral hospital, 939 consecutive daytime chest radiography examinations were evaluated. The outcome was classified as normal, incidental, or pathologic. The referring physician's reaction to radiologic outcome was classified as highly expected, moderately expected, or unexpected. The influence on the patients' treatment was divided into four groups from major to no influence. Results. In all, 71.6% of the studies had a highly expected outcome. Moderately expected or unexpected outcomes were noted in 36.6% of 500 pathologic examinations. Unexpected outcome was noted in 11.6% of all studies. The radiologic outcome influenced treatment in 65.4% of patients where pathology was demonstrated. Patients with normal or incidental findings had treatment influenced in 1/3 of the cases. Unexpected findings influenced treatment more than moderately expected findings. When radiological findings were highly expected, treatment was influenced in less than half of the cases. Surprisingly few chest radiology examinations were commented upon in the medical records.

show abstract