Unintended and Accidental Exposures, Significant Dose Events and Trigger Levels in Interventional Radiology

Establishment of typical values in cerebral thrombectomy according to the stroke anatomical region and procedure clinical outcome

The aim of the study is to establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in cerebral thrombectomy, according to the anatomical region of ischemic stroke. This is a retrospective study from a single center involving 255 examinations. The proposed median values (P50) for thrombectomy are: 123 Gy.cm2 for air kerma-area product (PKA) and 915 mGy for air kerma (Ka,r). For middle cerebral artery (MCA) thrombectomies, the proposed DRLs are 118 Gy.cm2 for PKA and 112 Gy.cm2 for internal carotid artery (ICA). The Ka,r values for MCA and ICA are 849 and 775 mGy, respectively. It was observed that 94.9% of patients presented grade 0 on the initial modified treatment in cerebral infarction (mTICI) scale, and after thrombectomy, 63.1% of patients reached a final mTICI grade of 3. Stents were implanted in 37 patients (14.5% of cases). It was concluded that 16.1% of patients exceeded one trigger value of the Safety in Radiological Procedures' recommended parameters. Establishing DRLs is an important tool for optimizing practices and is considered a standard for quality control.

National UK Survey of Radiation Doses During Endovascular Aortic Interventions

PURPOSE

Endovascular aortic repair (EAR) interventions, endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), are associated with significant radiation exposures. We aimed to investigate the radiation doses from real-world practice and propose diagnostic reference level (DRL) for the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiation data and essential demographics were retrospectively collected from 24 vascular and interventional radiology centres in the UK for all patients undergoing EAR-standard EVAR or complex, branched/fenestrated (BEVAR/FEVAR), and TEVAR-between 2018 and 2021. The data set was further categorised according to X-ray unit type, either fixed or mobile. The proposed national DRL is the 75th percentile of the collective medians for procedure KAP (kerma area product), cumulative air kerma (CAK), fluoroscopy KAP and CAK.

RESULTS

Data from 3712 endovascular aortic procedures were collected, including 2062 cases were standard EVAR, 906 cases of BEVAR/FEVAR and 509 cases of TEVAR. The majority of endovascular procedures (3477/3712) were performed on fixed X-ray units. The proposed DRL for KAP was 162 Gy cm2, 175 Gy cm2 and 266 Gy cm2 for standard EVAR, TEVAR and BEVAR/FEVAR, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The development of DRLs is pertinent to EAR procedures as the first step to optimise the radiation risks to patients and staff while maintaining the highest patient care and paving the way for steps to reduce radiation exposures.

Cumulative Effective Dose During Fluoroscopically Guided Interventions (FGI): Analysis of More Than 5000 FGIs in a Single European Center

BACKGROUND

The number of fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGI) has increased significantly over time. However, little attention has been paid to possible stochastic radiation effects. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the number of patients who received cumulative effective doses over 100 mSv during FGI procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five thousand five hundred and fifty four classified FGI procedures were included. Radiation dose data, retrieved from an in-house-dose-management system, was analysed. Effective doses and cumulative effective doses (CED) were calculated. Patients who received a CED > 100 mSv were identified. Radiology reports, patient age, imaging and clinical data of these patients were used to identify reasons for CED ≥ 100 mSv.

RESULTS

One Hundred and thirty two (41.1% female) of 3981 patients received a CED > 100 mSy, with a mean CED of 173.5 ± 84.5 mSv. Mean age at first intervention was 66.1 ± 11.7 years. 81 (61.4%) of 132 were older than 64 years, one patient was < 30 years. 110 patients received ≥ 100 mSv within one year (83.4%), through FGIs: EVAR, pelvic/mesenteric interventions (stent or embolization), hepatic interventions (chemoembolization, TIPSS), embolization of cerebral aneurysms or arterio-venous-malformations.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial CED may occur in a small but not ignorable fraction of patients (~ 3%) undergoing FGIs. Approximately 2/3rd of patients may most likely not encounter radiation-related stochastic effects due to life-threatening diseases and age at first treatment > 65 years but 1/3rd may. Patients undergoing more than one FGI (77%) carry a higher risk of accumulating effective doses > 100 mSv. Remarkably, 23% received a mean CED 162.2 ± 72.3 mSv in a single procedure.

Establishment of institutional diagnostic reference level for coronary angiography procedures in Sri Lanka

Amongst many interventional procedures performed in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory, the coronary angiography (CAG) is the most frequently performed cardiac interventional procedure. A diagnostic reference level (DRL) is an effective tool to optimise the radiation exposure to patients and staff whilst maintaining the adequate diagnostic image quality. The aim of the study was to establish institutional DRLs for the CAG procedures performed at a selected private hospital in Colombo, Sri Lanka. A total of 325 CAG procedures were selected for this study from two C-arm machines. The institutional DRLs of cumulative dose length product (DAP) and fluoroscopic time for the CAG procedure were calculated. The established institutional DRL for accumulated DAP and fluoroscopic time are 10 610 mGycm2 and 2.31 min, respectively. As this study conducted at only one institute we recommend to develop national DRLs for mostly performing interventional procedures in Sri Lanka by considering all influencing factors to optimise the patient dose.

Occupational and patient doses for interventional radiology integrated into a dose management system

OBJECTIVES

The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends managing patient and occupational doses as an integrated approach, for the optimisation of interventional procedures. The conventional passive personal dosimeters only allow one to know the accumulated occupational doses during a certain period of time. This information is not enough to identify if there is a lack of occupational radiation protection during some procedures. This paper describes the use of a dose management system (DMS) allowing patient and occupational doses for individual procedures to be audited.

METHODS

The DMS manages patient and occupational doses measured by electronic personal dosimeters. One dosemeter located at the C-arm is used as a reference for scatter radiation. Data have been collected from five interventional rooms. Dosimetry data can be managed for the whole procedure and the different radiation events. Optimisation is done through auditing different sets of parameters for individual procedures: patient dose indicators, occupational dose values, the ratio between occupational doses, and the doses measured by the reference dosemeter at the C-arm, and the ratio between occupational and patient dose values.

RESULTS

The managed data correspond to the year 2021, with around 4500 procedures, and 8000 records on occupational exposures. Patient and staff dose data (for 11 cardiologists, 7 radiologists and 8 nurses) were available for 3043 procedures. The DMS allows alerts for patient dose indicators and occupational exposures to be set.

CONCLUSIONS

The main advantage of this integrated approach is the capacity to improve radiation safety for patients and workers together, auditing alerts for individual procedures.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The management of patient and occupational doses together (measured with electronic personal dosimeters) for individual interventional procedures, using dose management systems, allows alerting optimisation on high-dose values for patients and staff.

A comparison of patient dose and occupational eye dose to the operator and nursing staff during transcatheter cardiac and endovascular procedures

The number and complexity of transcatheter procedures continue to increase, raising concerns regarding radiation exposure to patients and staff. Procedures such as transaortic valve implantations (TAVI) have led to cardiologists adopting higher dose techniques, such as digital subtraction angiography (DSA). This study compared the estimated patient and occupational eye dose during coronary angiography (CA), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), TAVI workups (TWU), TAVI, endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR), and other peripheral diagnostic (VD) and interventional (VI) vascular procedures. A quantitative analysis was performed on patient dose during 299 endovascular and 1498 cardiac procedures. Occupational dose was measured for the cardiologists (n = 24), vascular surgeons (n = 3), scrub (n = 32) and circulator nurses (n = 35). TAVI and EVAR were associated with the highest average dose for all staff, and significantly higher patient dose area product, probably attributable to the use of DSA. Scrub nurses were exposed to higher average doses than the operator and scout nurse during CA, VD and VI. Circulating nurses had the highest average levels of exposure during TAVI. This study has demonstrated that EVAR and TAVI have similar levels of occupational and patient dose, with a notable increase in circulator dose during TAVI. The use of DSA during cardiac procedures is associated with an increase in patient and staff dose, and cardiologists should evaluate whether DSA is necessary. Scrub nurses may be exposed to higher levels of occupational dose than the operator.

Notifications and alerts in patient dose values for computed tomography and fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures

The terms "notifications" and "alerts" for medical exposures are used by several national and international organisations. Recommendations for CT scanners have been published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Some interventional radiology societies as well as national authorities have also published dose notifications for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Notifications and alerts may also be useful for optimisation and to avoid unintended and accidental exposures. The main interest in using these values for high-dose procedures (CT and interventional) is to optimise imaging procedures, reducing the probability of stochastic effects and avoiding tissue reactions. Alerts in X-ray systems may be considered before procedures (as in CT), during procedures (in some interventional radiology systems), and after procedures, when the patient radiation dose results are known and processed. This review summarises the different uses of notifications and alerts to help in optimisation for CT and for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures as well as in the analysis of unintended and accidental medical exposures. The paper also includes cautions in setting the alert values and discusses the benefits of using patient dose management systems for the alerts, their registry and follow-up, and the differences between notifications, alerts, and trigger levels for individual procedures and the terms used for the collective approach, such as diagnostic reference levels. KEY POINTS: • Notifications and alerts on patient dose values for computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures (FGIP) allow to improve radiation safety and contribute to the avoidance of radiation injuries and unintended and accidental exposures. • Alerts may be established before the imaging procedures (as in CT) or during and after the procedures as for FGIP. • Dose management systems should include notifications and alerts and their registry for the hospital quality programmes.

Establishment of national diagnostic reference levels for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in Thailand

PURPOSE

To establish national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Thailand for lesions of different complexity.

METHODS

Radiation dose quantity as kerma-area-product (KAP) and cumulative air-kerma at reference point (CAK) from 76 catheterization labs in 38 hospitals in PCI registry of Thailand was transferred online to central data management. Sixteen months data (May 2018 to August 2019) was analyzed. We also investigated role of different factors that influence radiation dose the most.

RESULTS

Analysis of 22,737 PCIs resulted in national DRLs for PCI of 91.3 Gy.cm² (KAP) and 1360 mGy (CAK). The NDRLs for KAP for type C, B2, B1 and A lesions were 106.8, 82.6, 67.9, and 45.3 Gy.cm² respectively and for CAK, 1705, 1247, 962, and 790 mGy respectively. Thus, as compared to lesion A, lesion C had more than double the dose and B2 had nearly 1.6 times and B1 had 1.2 times CAK. Our DRL values are lower than other Asian countries like Japan and Korea and are in the middle range of Western countries. University hospital had significantly higher dose than private or public hospital possibly because of higher load of complex procedures in university hospitals and trainees performing the procedures. Transradial approach showed lower doses than transfemoral approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multi-centric study established DRLs for PCIs which can act as reference for future studies. A hallmark of our study is establishment of reference levels for coronary lesions classified as per ACC/AHA and thus for different complexities.

Radiation exposure during angiographic interventions in interventional radiology - risk and fate of advanced procedures

PURPOSE

Advanced angiographic procedures in interventional radiology are becoming more important and are more frequently used, especially in the treatment of several acute life-threatening diseases like stroke or aortic injury. In recent years, technical advancement has led to a broader spectrum of interventions and complex procedures with longer fluoroscopy times. This involves the risk of higher dose exposures, which, in rare cases, may cause deterministic radiation effects, e.g. erythema in patients undergoing angiographic procedures. Against this background, these procedures recently also became subject to national and international regulations regarding radiation protection. At the same time, individual risk assessment of possible stochastic radiation effects for each patient must be weighed up against the anticipated benefits of the therapy itself. Harmful effects of the administered dose are not limited to the patient but can also affect the radiologist and the medical staff. In particular, the development of cataracts in interventionalists is a rising matter of concern. Furthermore, long-term effects of repeated and prolonged x-ray exposure have long been neglected by radiologists but have come into focus in the past years.

CONCLUSIONS

With all this in mind, this review discusses different efforts to reduce radiation exposition levels for patients and medical staff by means of technical, personal as well as organizational measures.

Dosimetric quantities and effective dose in medical imaging: a summary for medical doctors

This review presents basic information on the dosimetric quantities used in medical imaging for reporting patient doses and establishing diagnostic reference levels. The proper use of the radiation protection quantity "effective dose" to compare doses delivered by different radiological procedures and different imaging modalities with its uncertainties and limitations, is summarised. The estimates of population doses required by the European Directive on Basic Safety Standards is commented on. Referrers and radiologists should be familiar with the dose quantities to inform patients about radiation risks and benefits. The application of effective dose on the cumulative doses from recurrent imaging procedures is also discussed. Patient summary: Basic information on the measurement units (dosimetric quantities) used in medical imaging for reporting radiation doses should be understandable to patients. The Working Group on "Dosimetry for imaging in clinical practice" recommended that a brief explanation on the used dosimetric quantities and units included in the examination imaging report, should be available for patients. The use of the quantity "effective dose" to compare doses to which patients are exposed to from different radiological procedures and its uncertainties and limitations, should also be explained in plain language. This is also relevant for the dialog on to the cumulative doses from recurrent imaging procedures. The paper summarises these concepts, including the need to estimate the population doses required by the European Directive on Basic Safety Standards. Referrers and radiologists should be familiar with the dose quantities to inform patients about radiation risks and benefits.

All for one, though not one for all: team players in normal tissue radiobiology

PURPOSE

As part of the special issue on 'Women in Science', this review offers a perspective on past and ongoing work in the field of normal (non-cancer) tissue radiation biology, highlighting the work of many of the leading contributors to this field of research. We discuss some of the hypotheses that have guided investigations, with a focus on some of the critical organs considered dose-limiting with respect to radiation therapy, and speculate on where the field needs to go in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

The scope of work that makes up normal tissue radiation biology has and continues to play a pivotal role in the radiation sciences, ensuring the most effective application of radiation in imaging and therapy, as well as contributing to radiation protection efforts. However, despite the proven historical value of preclinical findings, recent decades have seen clinical practice move ahead with altered fractionation scheduling based on empirical observations, with little to no (or even negative) supporting scientific data. Given our current appreciation of the complexity of normal tissue radiation responses and their temporal variability, with tissue- and/or organ-specific mechanisms that include intra-, inter- and extracellular messaging, as well as contributions from systemic compartments, such as the immune system, the need to maintain a positive therapeutic ratio has never been more urgent. Importantly, mitigation and treatment strategies, whether for the clinic, emergency use following accidental or deliberate releases, or reducing occupational risk, will likely require multi-targeted approaches that involve both local and systemic intervention. From our personal perspective as five 'Women in Science', we would like to acknowledge and applaud the role that many female scientists have played in this field. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before, some of whom are fellow contributors to this special issue.

Get Protected! Recommendations for Staff in IR

Purpose

Evaluation and registration of patient and staff doses are mandatory under the current European legislation, and the occupational dose limits recommended by the ICRP have been adopted by most of the countries in the world.

Methods

Relevant documents and guidelines published by international organisations and interventional radiology societies are referred. Any potential reduction of patient and staff doses should be compatible with the clinical outcomes of the procedures.

Results

The review summarises the most common protective measures and the needed quality control for them, the criteria to select the appropriate protection devices, and how to avoid unnecessary occupational radiation exposures. Moreover, the current and future advancements in personnel radiation protection using medical simulation with virtual and augmented reality, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI) are commented. A section on the personnel radiation protection in the era of COVID-19 is introduced, showing the expanding role of the interventional radiology during the pandemic.

Conclusion

The review is completed with a summary of the main factors to be considered in the selection of the appropriate radiation protection tools and practical advices to improve the protection of the staff.

How to Measure/Calculate Radiation Dose in Patients?

Patients in fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGI) may be exposed to substantial radiation dose levels (SRDL). The most commonly reported adverse reactions are skin injuries with erythema or necrosis. It is therefore important for the interventional radiologist to know deterministic effects with their threshold doses. If possible all relevant modality parameters should be displayed on the interventionalists screen. Dosimetric parameters should be displayed in digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) units and stored as DICOM Radiation Dose Structured Report (RDSR). The peak skin dose (PSD) is the most relevant risk parameter for skin injuries. Dose management systems (DMS) help optimising radiation exposure of patients. However, their calculation of skin dose maps is only available after a FGI. Therefore, dose maps and PSD should preferably be calculated and displayed in real time by the modality.

Challenges in Occupational Dosimetry for Interventional Radiologists

This review presents the challenges met by interventional radiologists in occupational dosimetry. The issues mentioned are derived from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the CIRSE guidelines on "Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology" and the requirements of the European directive on Basic Safety Standards. The criteria for a proper use of personal dosimeters and the need to introduce optimization actions in some cases are set out in this review. The pros and cons of the electronic real-time dosimeters are outlined and the potential pitfalls associated with the use of personal dosimeters summarized. The electronic dosimeters, together with the appropriate software, allow an active optimization of the interventional procedures.

Report of IRPA task group on issues and actions taken in response to the change in eye lens dose limit

In 2018, the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) established its third task group (TG) on the implementation of the eye lens dose limit. To contribute to sharing experience and raising awareness within the radiation protection community about protection of workers in exposure of the lens of the eye, the TG conducted a questionnaire survey and analysed the responses. This paper provides an overview of the results of the questionnaire.

Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention

OBJECTIVE

To identify a patient cohort who received ≥ 100 mSv during a single computed tomography (CT)-guided intervention and analyze clinical information.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the dose-tracking platform Radimetrics that collects data from all CT scanners in a single hospital, a patient-level search was performed retrospectively by setting a threshold effective dose (E) of 100 mSv for the period from January 2013 to December 2017. Patients who received ≥ 100 mSv in a single day during a single CT-guided intervention were then identified. Procedure types were identified, and medical records were reviewed up to January 2020 to identify patients who developed short- and/or medium-term (up to 8 years) medical consequences.

RESULTS

Of 8952 patients with 100 mSv+, there were 33 patients who underwent 37 CT-guided interventions each resulting in ≥ 100 mSv. Procedures included ablations (15), myelograms (8), drainages (7), biopsies (6), and other (1). The dose for individual procedures was 100.2 to 235.5 mSv with mean and median of 125.7 mSv and 111.8 mSv, respectively. Six patients (18 %) were less than 50 years of age. During the study period of 0.2 to 7 years, there were no deterministic or stochastic consequences identified in this study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

While infrequent, CT-guided interventions may result in a single procedure dose of ≥ 100 mSv. Awareness of the possibility of such high doses and potential for long-term deleterious effects, especially in younger patients, and consideration of alternative imaging guidance and/or further dose optimization should be strongly considered whenever feasible.

KEY POINTS

• Although not so frequent, CT-guided interventions may result in a single procedure dose of ≥ 100 mSv • Procedures with potential for high dose includes ablations, myelograms, drainages, and biopsies.

Higher patient doses through X-ray imaging procedures

Medical imaging using X-rays has been one of the most popular imaging modalities ever since the discovery of X-rays 125 years ago. With unquestionable benefits, concerns about radiation risks have frequently been raised. Computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic guided interventional procedures have the potential to impart higher radiation exposure to patients than radiographic examinations. Despite technological advances, there have been instances of increased doses per procedure mainly because of better diagnostic information in images. However, cumulative dose from multiple procedures is creating new concerns as effective doses >100 mSv are not uncommon. There is a need for action at all levels. Manufacturers must produce equipment that can provide a quality diagnostic image at substantially lesser dose and better implementation of optimization strategies by users. There is an urgent need for the industry to develop CT scanners with sub-mSv radiation dose, a goal that has been lingering. It appears that a new monochromatic X-ray source will lead to replacement of X-ray tubes all over the world in coming years and will lead to a drastic reduction in radiation doses. This innovation will impact all X-ray imaging and will help dose reduction. For interventional procedures, the likely employment of robotic systems in practice may drastically reduce radiation exposures to operators- but patient exposure will still remain an issue. Training needs always need to be emphasized and practiced.