Interventional Equipment and Radiation Safety

Radiation dose during interventional cardiology procedures: portable C-arm vs. a new generation fluoroscopy system

INTRODUCTION

Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation poses health risks for veterinary interventionalists. There are limited veterinary studies evaluating radiation dose in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The purpose of this study was to report direct radiation dose exposure to patients during common interventional cardiology procedures and compare these doses between two fluoroscopy units.

ANIMALS

One hundred and fifty-four client-owned dogs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient dose during procedures using a portable C-arm were retrospectively analyzed and compared to those performed in a contemporary interventional suite. Fluoroscopy equipment, procedure type, operator, patient weight, fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and air kerma were recorded and statistically modeled using univariable and multivariable linear regression to evaluate the effect of each factor.

RESULTS

Patient dose population (154 dogs), comprised 61 patent ductus arteriosus occlusions, 60 balloon pulmonary valvuloplasties, and 33 pacemaker implantations. Patient dose was significantly lower in the group utilizing a newer generation fluoroscopy unit vs. the group utilizing an older portable C-arm, positively correlated with patient weight, and highest during balloon pulmonary valvuloplasties compared to patent ductus arteriosus occlusions or pacemaker implantations (all p<0.010).

DISCUSSION

Newer fluoroscopy systems can be equipped with technologies that improve image quality while reducing patient dose and radiation exposure to interventional personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

We documented a significant reduction in patient radiation dose using a newer fluoroscopy system as compared to an older portable C-arm for interventional cardiology procedures in animals. Improved knowledge of patient radiation dose factors may promote better radiation safety protocols in veterinary interventional cardiology.

ICRP PUBLICATION 153 Approved by the Commission in September 2022

Veterinary use of radiation in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of disease has expanded and diversified, as have the corresponding radiological protection concerns. Radiological exposure of personnel involved in veterinary procedures and, where applicable, members of the public providing assistance (e.g. owners or handlers) has always been included within the system of radiological protection. Veterinary practice is now addressed explicitly as the modern complexities associated with this practice warrant dedicated consideration, and there is a need to clarify and strengthen the application of radiological protection principles in this area. The Commission recommends that the system of radiological protection should be applied in veterinary practice principally for the protection of humans, but with explicit attention to the protection of exposed animals. Additionally, consideration should be given to the risk of potential contamination of the environment associated with applications of nuclear medicine in veterinary practice. This publication focuses primarily on justification and optimisation in veterinary practice, and sets the scene for more detailed guidance to follow in future Recommendations. It is intended for a wide-ranging audience, including radiological protection professionals, veterinary staff, students, education and training providers, and members of the public, as an introduction to radiological protection in veterinary practice.© 2022 ICRP. Published by SAGE.

Self-reported radiation safety behaviors among veterinary specialists and residents performing fluoroscopic procedures on small animals

OBJECTIVE

To describe the radiation safety behaviors of veterinary specialists performing small animal fluoroscopic procedures and examine potential risk factors for these behaviors, including knowledge of radiation risk and training regarding machine operating parameters.

SAMPLE

197 veterinary specialists and residents in training.

PROCEDURES

An electronic questionnaire was distributed to members of the American Colleges of Veterinary Internal Medicine (subspecialties of cardiology and small animal internal medicine), Veterinary Radiology, and Veterinary Surgery.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 6% (240/4,274 email recipients). Of the 240 respondents, 197 (82%) had operated an x-ray unit for a small animal fluoroscopic procedure in the preceding year and fully completed the questionnaire. More than 95% of respondents believed that radiation causes cancer, yet approximately 60% of respondents never wore hand or eye protection during fluoroscopic procedures, and 28% never adjusted the fluoroscopy machine operating parameters for the purpose of reducing their radiation dose. The most common reasons for not wearing eye shielding included no requirement to wear eyeglasses, poor fit, discomfort, and interference of eyeglasses with task performance. Respondents who had received training regarding machine operating parameters adjusted those parameters to reduce their radiation dose during procedures significantly more frequently than did respondents who had not received training.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

On the basis of the self-reported suboptimal radiation safety practices among veterinary fluoroscopy users, we recommend formal incorporation of radiation safety education into residency training programs. All fluoroscopy machine operators should be trained regarding the machine operating parameters that can be adjusted to reduce occupational radiation exposure.