Patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology in the U.S.: advisory data sets and possible initial values for U.S. reference levels

Approaches to enhancing radiation safety in cardiovascular imaging: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

Education, justification, and optimization are the cornerstones to enhancing the radiation safety of medical imaging. Education regarding the benefits and risks of imaging and the principles of radiation safety is required for all clinicians in order for them to be able to use imaging optimally. Empowering patients with knowledge of the benefits and risks of imaging will facilitate their meaningful participation in decisions related to their health care, which is necessary to achieve patient-centered care. Limiting the use of imaging to appropriate clinical indications can ensure that the benefits of imaging outweigh any potential risks. Finally, the continually expanding repertoire of techniques that allow high-quality imaging with lower radiation exposure should be used when available to achieve safer imaging. The implementation of these strategies in practice is necessary to achieve high-quality, patient-centered imaging and will require a shared effort and investment by all stakeholders, including physicians, patients, national scientific and educational organizations, politicians, and industry.

Three-dimensional fusion computed tomography decreases radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast use during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular surgery has revolutionized the treatment of aortic aneurysms; however, these improvements have come at the cost of increased radiation and contrast exposure, particularly for more complex procedures. Three-dimensional (3D) fusion computed tomography (CT) imaging is a new technology that may facilitate these repairs. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the effect of using intraoperative 3D fusion CT on the performance of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR).

METHODS

Our institutional database was reviewed to identify patients undergoing branched or FEVAR. Patients treated using 3D fusion CT were compared with patients treated in the immediate 12-month period before implementation of this technology when procedures were performed in a standard hybrid operating room without CT fusion capabilities. Primary end points included patient radiation exposure (cumulated air kerma: mGy), fluoroscopy time (minutes), contrast usage (mL), and procedure time (minutes). Patients were grouped by the number of aortic graft fenestrations revascularized with a stent graft, and operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients (41 before vs 31 after 3D fusion CT implementation) underwent FEVAR from September 2012 through March 2014. For two-vessel fenestrated endografts, there was a significant decrease in radiation exposure (3400 ± 1900 vs 1380 ± 520 mGy; P = .001), fluoroscopy time (63 ± 29 vs 41 ± 11 minutes; P = .02), and contrast usage (69 ± 16 vs 26 ± 8 mL; P = .0002) with intraoperative 3D fusion CT. Similarly, for combined three-vessel and four-vessel FEVAR, significantly decreased radiation exposure (5400 ± 2225 vs 2700 ± 1400 mGy; P < .0001), fluoroscopy time (89 ± 36 vs 64 ± 21 minutes; P = .02), contrast usage (90 ± 25 vs 39 ± 17 mL; P < .0001), and procedure time (330 ± 100 vs 230 ± 50 minutes; P = .002) was noted. Estimated blood loss was significantly less (P < .0001), and length of stay had a trend (P = .07) toward being lower for all patients in the 3D fusion CT group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that use of intraoperative 3D fusion CT imaging during FEVAR can significantly decrease radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast usage, which may also decrease the overall physiologic impact of the repair.

Radiation dose in coronary angiography and intervention: initial results from the establishment of a multi-centre diagnostic reference level in Queensland public hospitals

Introduction

Radiation dose to patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is relatively high. Guidelines suggest that a local benchmark or diagnostic reference level (DRL) be established for these procedures. This study sought to create a DRL for ICA procedures in Queensland public hospitals.

Methods

Data were collected for all Cardiac Catheter Laboratories in Queensland public hospitals. Data were collected for diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and single-vessel percutaneous intervention (PCI) procedures. Dose area product (P_KA), skin surface entrance dose (K_AR), fluoroscopy time (FT), and patient height and weight were collected for 3 months. The DRL was set from the 75th percentile of the P_KA.

Results

2590 patients were included in the CA group where the median FT was 3.5 min (inter-quartile range = 2.3–6.1). Median K_AR = 581 mGy (374–876). Median P_KA = 3908 uGym² (2489–5865) DRL = 5865 uGym². 947 patients were included in the PCI group where median FT was 11.2 min (7.7–17.4). Median K_AR = 1501 mGy (928–2224). Median P_KA = 8736 uGym² (5449–12,900) DRL = 12,900 uGym².

Conclusion

This study established a benchmark for radiation dose for diagnostic and interventional coronary angiography in Queensland public facilities.

Efforts to optimize radiation protection in interventional fluoroscopy

While it has been known for more than a century that radiation presents risks to both the physician and the patient, skin injuries from fluoroscopy became increasingly rare after the 1930s, and radiation risk from fluoroscopy appeared to be adequately controlled. However, beginning in approximately 1975, new technologies and materials for interventional devices were developed. These enabled new procedures, and as these were instituted, skin injuries again occurred in patients. Four central issues were identified: equipment, quality management, operator training, and occupational radiation protection. Recognition that these were areas for improvement provoked changes in technology and practice that continue today.