Title of Journal

Article: No change in endothelial-dependent vasomotion late after coronary irradiation

Title of Journal

Cardiovascular Radiation Medicine

Volume 5 Issue 4 Date 1/28/05 Page Number(s) 156-161

• What organization is responsible for publishing the journal you chose?

Elsevier B.V.

• What is your overall evaluation of this article?

_____Poor ______Fair ______Good ___X___Very Good _____Excellent

• Why did you choose to review this particular article?

I chose to review this article because my research project relates to the differences between regular and drug-eluting stents. In this article, it talks about the injuries patients sustain from regular angioplasty and stenting versus patients that also receive additional irradiadtional therapy. I was curious to see how regular stenting fares against these procedures. It also measured the plaque build up after procedures. The re-closing of arteries (restenosis) is one of the most important arguments in my project.

• How would you rate this article as a tool for teaching a student about cardiopulmonary physiology, radiography, or another allied health specialty?

Students: ____Poor ____Fair _____Good _____Very Good __X__Excellent

Teachers: ____Poor ____Fair _____Good __X__Very Good _____Excellent

Patients: ____Poor ____Fair _____Good __X_Very Good _____Excellent

• Comment on the readability of this article.

Much like any health care related article, the language is thick with medical terminology. Readers outside the medical field would need some further explanations to fully understand the article. If the reader is however well versed to these terms, it is very readable.

• Course Topics covered:

This article is a quantitative angiography, and all of the patients’ results and procedures are recorded and graphed.

• Brief Summary:

15 patients were selected for this study. Seven of the patients received regular stents, while the other eight received additional radiation. After six months, the patients were accessed to measure the blood flow distal to the point of angioplasty/stenting. The differences were minimal and not significant to prove that additional radiation is more effective than stenting. Additional radiation treatments did show a smaller increase in plaque build up in the arteries.

• Identify and attempt to explain three (3) terms, procedures or concepts that were unfamiliar to you when reviewing this article.

  1. Intercoronary acetylcholine: is one of the variables that effects constriction and dilation of arteries.

  2. I was unaware that blood flow in the heart can be measured as coronary flow reserve (CFR).

  3. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is a procedure I have witnessed before, but this article went more in-depth than my previous understanding of it.
     

• Detail the strengths/weaknesses of this article.

The article was very well written and informative. The tests used to determine the differences between regular stenting/angioplasty and more radiational treatments was set up very well, but I feel that the sample size was too small to get a reasonable number that can be applied to the population. I thought more than 15 patients should have been used.

• How might this article be useful to you in your further studies and career?

I am hoping to get into the radiography program at ETSU, and topics like these are very useful to me. My friend works in the special procedures department in the heart catherization lab. I would love to do something involving the heart in my career and this article examines different procedures that I may be doing one day.

• Does the article include a list of references/citations that can be used to find more information on the topics they cover?

Yes, it has over 10 other articles to reference

Name: Will Hargis

Date: 2/20/09