Heart protected by a radiation shield, representing fluorography's safety.

Fluorography vs. Cineangiography: Which Method Reduces Radiation Exposure?

Kai Mendoza in Health & Wellness December 2025 • 4 min read.

"A new study compares fluorography and cineangiography in coronary angiography (CAG) to assess which technique minimizes radiation exposure for patients."

Coronary angiography (CAG) remains the gold standard for diagnosing coronary artery disease, providing critical insights into the health of your heart. However, like any medical procedure involving radiation, it raises concerns about potential risks. You might wonder, 'How can I ensure my heart is thoroughly examined while minimizing my exposure to radiation?'

Traditionally, cineangiography, which captures a series of X-ray images in rapid succession (like a movie), has been the standard method. But advancements in technology have led to the development of fluorography, a technique that captures still fluoroscopic images, offering a potentially safer alternative.

A recent study published in the Korean Circulation Journal delves into this very question, comparing radiation exposure levels between cineangiography and fluorography. The goal? To identify if fluorography can effectively reduce radiation without compromising the quality of the diagnostic images.

Understanding Fluorography: A Safer Imaging Technique

Heart protected by a radiation shield, representing fluorography's safety.

Fluorography, also known as “store fluoro,” is a method of capturing and storing fluoroscopic images, offering a way to retrospectively review and replay heart images. Think of it as taking snapshots during a continuous X-ray, reducing the overall exposure time. Because fluoroscopy delivers significantly lower radiation doses compared to cineangiography (approximately 10-20 times less), fluorography minimizes your exposure.

The study, conducted at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, enrolled 55 patients undergoing elective CAG. Patients were divided into two groups based on the operator's preference: a cineangiography group and a fluorography group. Researchers then meticulously measured:

Air kerma (AK): The air kinetic energy released per unit mass, indicating radiation intensity.
Dose-area product (DAP): A measure of the total radiation energy delivered during the procedure.
Total procedure time: From the start to finish of the angiography.
Contrast agent amount: The volume of dye used to enhance the images.

To ensure accurate image quality assessment, three experienced interventional cardiologists, blinded to patient data, reviewed the angiographic images. They rated image quality on a 10-point scale, ensuring diagnostic quality wasn't sacrificed for reduced radiation.

The Future of Safer Heart Imaging

The study provides compelling evidence that fluorography is a useful method to decrease radiation exposure in selected patients requiring CAG, offering a safer alternative without compromising diagnostic image quality. Talk to your doctor about whether fluorography is an appropriate option for your specific needs. As technology advances, expect even more innovations to prioritize patient safety in heart imaging.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.4070/kcj.2015.45.6.451, Alternate LINK

Title: Radiation Exposure In Coronary Angiography: A Comparison Of Cineangiography And Fluorography

Subject: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Journal: Korean Circulation Journal

Publisher: The Korean Society of Cardiology

Authors: Jongmin Hwang, Soo Yong Lee, Min Ku Chon, Sang Hyun Lee, Ki Won Hwang, Jeong Su Kim, Yong Hyun Park, June Hong Kim, Kook Jin Chun

Published: 2015-01-01

Everything You Need To Know

What is the difference between Fluorography and Cineangiography?

The process of diagnosing coronary artery disease, called Coronary Angiography (CAG), relies on imaging your heart. The conventional method for imaging, called cineangiography, utilizes rapid succession X-ray images to produce a movie-like view, but exposes the patient to more radiation. Conversely, Fluorography, also known as “store fluoro,” captures still fluoroscopic images, like snapshots during the continuous X-ray, leading to reduced overall radiation exposure.

What methods were compared in the study, and how did the study work?

The study compared two different methods: cineangiography and Fluorography. Cineangiography, traditionally used, captures a series of X-ray images quickly, offering detailed, movie-like views of the heart. However, it involves higher radiation exposure. Fluorography captures still fluoroscopic images, offering a potentially safer alternative by reducing the overall exposure time to radiation during the procedure. This research, conducted at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, enrolled 55 patients. The study measured Air kerma (AK), Dose-area product (DAP), Total procedure time, and Contrast agent amount to understand the impact of each technique.

Why is Fluorography considered a safer method for heart imaging?

Fluorography is a safer technique in heart imaging because it significantly reduces radiation exposure compared to cineangiography. This is achieved by capturing still fluoroscopic images, which require less radiation than the continuous X-ray imaging used in cineangiography. This method is especially important as CAG involves radiation, raising concerns about potential risks. By using Fluorography, it minimizes the exposure and ensures patient safety without compromising the quality of the diagnostic images.

How does Fluorography work compared to the traditional method?

Fluorography works by capturing and storing fluoroscopic images, like snapshots, during a continuous X-ray. It allows doctors to retrospectively review and replay heart images, reducing the total exposure time. Compared to cineangiography, which captures a series of rapid X-ray images, Fluorography delivers significantly lower radiation doses. This is due to the difference in how the images are captured – still images in Fluorography versus a continuous flow of images in cineangiography. The choice between the two methods can depend on the patient's specific needs.

What are the implications of this study for patients?

The implications of this research are significant for patients undergoing Coronary Angiography (CAG). The study's findings suggest that Fluorography offers a safer alternative to cineangiography by reducing radiation exposure without sacrificing image quality. This provides an important option for patients who require heart imaging. Patients should discuss the option of Fluorography with their doctors to ensure they are receiving the safest and most appropriate care based on their specific condition.