PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2019; 29(03): 247-252
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_35_19
Interventional Radiology

Radiation dose reference card for interventional radiology procedures: Experience in a tertiary referral centre

Anna Varghese
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Shyamkumar N Keshava
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Vinu Moses
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
George Koshy
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Suraj Mammen
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Munawwar Ahmed
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Roshan S Livingstone
Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
› Institutsangaben Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background: Fluoroscopy-guided interventions can potentially increase radiation risk to patients, if awareness on angiographic imaging technique and radiation dose is neglected. Aim: To develop patient radiation dose reference card from standardized imaging techniques for various radiology interventions performed using flat detector based angiography system. Materials and Methods: Real-time monitoring of angiographic exposure parameters and radiation dose were performed for 16 types of radiological interventions. Effective dose (ED) was estimated from dose area product (DAP) using PCXMC Monte Carlo simulation software. Radiation risk levels were estimated based on Biological Effects of Ionising radiation (BEIR) report VII predictive models for an Asian population. Results: Pulse rates of 7.5 pps and 0.6 mm Copper filtration during fluoroscopy and 4 frames per second (fps) and 0.1-0.3 mm Cu filtration during image acquisitions were found to reduce radiation dose. Owing to increased number of image acquisitions, DAP was highest during diagnostic spinal angiography 186.7 Gycm2 (44.0–377.5). This resulted in highest ED of 59.4 mSv with moderate risk levels (1 in 1000 to 1 in 500). Most of the radiological interventions had low radiation risk levels (1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1000). Conclusion: The patient radiation dose reference card is valuable to the medical community and can aid in patient counselling on radiation induced risk from radiological interventions.

Keywords

Flat detector - interventional radiology - radiation dose reference card


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 19. Februar 2019

Angenommen: 31. August 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. Juli 2021

© 2019. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Livingstone R, Chase D, Varghese A, George P, George O. Transition from image intensifier to flat panel detector in interventional cardiology: Impact of radiation dose. J Med Phys 2015; 40: 24-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Seibert JA. Flat-panel detectors: How much better are they?. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36 Suppl (02) 173-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Trianni A, Bernardi G, Padovani R. Are new technologies always reducing patient doses in cardiac procedures?. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 117: 97-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van den Haak RFF, Hamans BC, Zuurmond K, Verhoeven BA, Koning OH. Significant radiation dose reduction in the hybrid operating room using a novel X-ray imaging technology. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2015; 50: 480-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Faroux L, Blanpain T, Nazeyrollas P, Tassan-Mangina S, Heroguelle V, Tourneux C. et al. Effect of modern dose-reduction technology on the exposure of interventional cardiologists to radiation in the catheterization laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: 222-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tsapaki V, Balter S, Cousins C, Holmberg O, Miller DL, Miranda P. et al. The International Atomic Energy Agency action plan on radiation protection of patients and staff in interventional procedures: Achieving change in practice. Phys Med 2018; 52: 56-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Trianni A, Padovani R, Gasparini D. Assessment of Trigger levels to prevent tissue reaction in interventional radiology procedures. Proceedings of International Symposium on Standards, Applications and Quality assurance in Medical radiation dosimetry 2010; 2: 115-23
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Vijayalakshmi K, Kelly D, Chapple C, Williams D, Wright R, Stewart MJ. et al. Cardiac catheterisation: Radiation doses and lifetime risk of malignancy. Heart 2007; 93: 370-1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brenner D, Huda W. Effective dose: A useful concept in diagnostic radiology?. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 128: 503-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Report 126 Uncertainties in fatal cancer risk estimates used in radiation protection. 1997
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baysson H, Réhel JL, Boudjemline Y, Petit J, Girodon B, Aubert B. et al. Risk of cancer associated with cardiac catheterization procedures during childhood: A cohort study in France. BMC Public Health 2013; 13: 266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brenner DJ. Effective dose: A flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 521-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zener R, Johnson P, Wiseman D, Pandey S, Mujoomdar A. Informed consent for radiation in interventional radiology procedures. Can Assoc Radiol J 2018; 69: 30-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J, Picano E. The information imperative: Is it time for an informed consent process explaining the risks of medical radiation?. Radiology 2012; 262: 15-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 National Research Council. 2006. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionising radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; Available from: https://doi.org/10.17226/11340. [Last accessed on 2018 Sep 15]
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Servomaa A, Tapiovaara M. Organ dose calculation in medical X ray examinations by the program PCXMC. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998; 80: 213-9
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Watson LE, Riggs MW, Bourland PD. Radiation exposure during cardiology fellowship training. Health Phys 1997; 73: 690-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kuon E, Dahm JB, Schmitt M, Glaser C, Gefeller O, Pfahlberg A. Short communication: Time of day influences patient radiation exposure from percutaneous cardiac interventions. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 189-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tsapaki V, Maniatis PN, Magginas A, Voudris V, Patsilinakos S, Vranzta T. et al. What are the clinical and technical factors that influence the kerma-area product in percutaneous coronary intervention?. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 940-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fetterly KA, Lennon RJ, Bell MR, Holmes DR, Rihal CS. Clinical determinants of radiation dose in percutaneous coronary interventional procedures: Influence of patient size, procedure complexity, and performing physician. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 336-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Partridge J. Radiation in the cardiac catheter laboratory. Heart 2005; 91: 1615-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Varghese A, Livingstone RS, Varghese L, Kumar P, Srinath SC, George OK. et al. Radiation doses and estimated risk from angiographic projections during coronary angiography performed using novel flat detector. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2016; 17: 5926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Livingstone RS, Raghuram L, Korah IP, Raj DV. Evaluation of radiation risk and work practices during cerebral interventions. J Radiol Prot 2003; 23: 327-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hassan AE, Amelot S. Radiation exposure during neurointerventional procedures in modern biplane angiographic systems: A single-site experience. Interv Neurol 2017; 6: 105-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ihn YK, Kim B-S, Byun JS, Suh SH, Won YD, Lee DH. et al. Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for intracranial aneurysms: A multicenter study. Neurointervention 2016; 11: 78-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Geryes BH, Bak A, Lachaux J, Ozanne A, Boddaert N, Brunelle F. et al. Patient radiation doses and reference levels in pediatric interventional radiology. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 3983-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Varghese A, Livingstone RS, Varghese L, Dey S, Jose J, Thomson VS. et al. Radiation dose from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedure performed using a flat detector for different clinical angiographic projections. J Radiol Prot 2018; 38: 511-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kim S, Sopko D, Toncheva G, Enterline D, Keijzers B, Yoshizumi TT. Radiation dose from 3D rotational X-ray imaging: Organ and effective dose with conversion factors. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2012; 150: 50-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Suzuki S, Furui S, Yamaguchi I, Yamagishi M, Watanabe A, Abe T. et al. Effective dose during abdominal three-dimensional imaging with a flat-panel detector angiography system. Radiology 2009; 250: 545-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Falco MD, Masala S, Stefanini M, Bagalà P, Morosetti D, Calabria E. et al. Effective-dose estimation in interventional radiological procedures. Radiol Phys Technol 2018; 11: 149-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Martin CJ. Effective dose: How should it be applied to medical exposures?. Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 639-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 ACR dose reference card. Available from: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Radiology-Safety/Radiation-Safety/Dose-Reference-Card.pdf?la-en. [Last accessed on 2018 Nov 17]
  • 33 Frush DP, Applegate KE. Radiation risk from medical imaging in children. In: Medina LS, Applegate KE, Blackmore CC. editors Evidence-Based Imaging in Pediatrics [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2010: 25-39 Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-0922-0_3. [Last accessed on 2018 Nov 08]
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Hall EJ. Lessons we have learned from our children: Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Pediatr Radiol 2002; 32: 700-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar