Updating national diagnostic reference levels for interventional cardiology and methodological aspects

Ionizing radiation exposure in complex percutaneous coronary intervention: Defining local diagnostic reference levels in the catheterization laboratory

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Concerns regarding the consequences of ionizing radiation (IR) have been increasing in the field of interventional cardiology (IC). There is little information on reported national and local radiation diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in catheterization laboratories in Portugal. This study was designed to assess the IR dose exposure during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to set the respective DRLs and future achievable doses (ADs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study which took place between 2019 and 2020, including patients who underwent complex PCI. Complex PCI was defined as all procedures that encompass treatment of chronic total occlusions (CTO) or left main coronary artery. DRLs were defined as the 75th percentile of the distribution of the median values of air kerma area product (PKA) and cumulative air kerma (Ka,r). ADs were set at the 50th percentile of the study dose distribution. Multivariate analysis was performed using linear regression to identify predictors significantly associated with radiation dose (Ka,r).

RESULTS

A total of 242 patients were included in the analysis. Most patients underwent a CTO procedure (146, 60.3%). Patients were aged 67.9±11.2 years and mostly male (81.4%). DRLs were set in Ka,r (3012 mGy) and PKA (162 Gy cm2) for complex PCI. ADs were also set in Ka,r (1917 mGy) and PKA (101 Gy cm2). Independent predictors of Ka,r with a positive correlation were PKA (0.893, p<0.001), fluoroscopy time (0.520, p<0.001) and PCI time (0.521, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the results of IR in complex PCI. DRLs were set for IR dose exposure measured in Ka,r (3012 mGy) and PKA (162 Gy cm2). ADs, values to be achieved in future assessment, were set to Ka,r (1917 mGy) and PKA (101 Gy cm2).

National survey to update the diagnostic reference levels in interventional radiology procedures in Italy: working methodology

Interventional Radiology (IR) deals with the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases through medically guided imaging. It provides unquestionable benefits to patients, but requires, in many cases, the use of high doses of ionizing radiation with a high impact on radiation risks to patients and to overall dose to the population. The International Commission on Radiological Protection introduced Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) as an effective tool to facilitate dose verification and optimize protection for patients undergoing radiological procedures. In addition, EURATOM Council Directive 2013/59 and its Italian transposition (Legislative Decree 101/2020) have reiterated that DRLs must be established for many common radiological diagnostic procedures to compare the radiation dose delivered for the same diagnostic examination. Within this framework, Istituto Superiore di Sanità-Italian National Institute of Health (ISS)-, in collaboration with relevant Italian Scientific Societies, has provided documents on DRLs in radiological practices such as diagnostic and IR and diagnostic nuclear medicine. These reference documents enable National Hospitals to comply national regulation. The implementation of DRLs in IR is a difficult task because of the wide distribution of doses to patients even within the same procedure. Some studies have revealed that the amount of radiation in IR procedures is influenced more by the complexity of the procedure than by the weight of the patient, so complexity should be included in the definition of DRLs. For this reason, ISS promoted a survey among a sample of Italian Centers update national DRL in IR procedures with related complexity factors than can be useful for other radiological centers and to standardize the DRLs values. In the present paper the procedural methodology developed by ISS and used for the survey will be illustrated.

Current status of diagnostic reference levels in interventional cardiology

Interventional cardiology provides indisputable benefits for patients but uses a substantial amount of ionising radiation. The diagnostic reference level (DRL) is the tool recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection to optimise imaging procedures. In this work, a review of studies dealing with radiation dose or recommending DRL values for interventional cardiology since 2010 is presented, providing quantitative and qualitative results. There are many published papers on coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention. The DRL values compiled for different continental regions are different: the DRL for CA is about 35 Gy cm²for Europe and 83 Gy cm²for North America. These differences emphasise the need to establish national DRLs considering different social and/or economic factors and the harmonisation of the survey methodology. Surveys with a large amount of data collected with the help of dose management systems provide more reliable information with less chance of statistical bias than those with a small amount of data. The complexity of procedures and improvements in technology are important factors that affect the radiation dose delivered to patients. There is a need for additional data on structural and electrophysiological procedures. The analysis of paediatric procedures is especially difficult because some studies present results split into age bands and others into weight bands. Diagnostic procedures are better described, but there is a great variety of therapeutic procedures with different DRL values (up to a factor of nine) and these require a dedicated review.

TYPICAL VALUES OF DOSIMETRIC DATA FOR CARDIAC FLUOROSCOPY-GUIDED PROCEDURES IN A SOUTH AFRICAN TEACHING HOSPITAL

Currently there are limited diagnostic reference level (DRL) data for South African (SA) public sector cardiac fluoroscopy-guided procedures (FGPs). A 4-y retrospective study of dosimetric data on 6265 patients determined typical values (50th percentile) of dosimetric data for the seven most frequent cardiac FGPs at a SA teaching hospital. Kerma-area-product (KAP), reference point air Kerma (Ka,r) and fluoroscopy time (FT) were, respectively, calculated for coronary angiography (CA) (n = 1935; 61Gy.cm2, 624 mGy, 5 min); CA with left ventriculography (n = 1687; 85Gy.cm2, 840 mGy, 3.9 min), valve screening (n = 129; 6Gy.cm2, 164 mGy, 2.3 min), percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 1922; 145Gy.cm2, 1569 mGy, 11.9 min), pacemaker implantation (n = 432; 9Gy.cm2, 100 mGy, 6.5 min), pericardial tap (n = 115; 1.9Gy.cm2, 18 mGy, 1.5 min) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (n = 45; 65Gy.cm2, 658 mGy, 14.1 min). This work presents the largest SA public sector cardiac FGP dosimetric data to date and provides a key resource for future work in this domain.

Effect of equalization filters on measurements with kerma-area product meter in a cardiovascular angiography system

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of equalization filters (EFs) on the kerma‐area product (KAPQKM) and incident air‐kerma (Ka,i,QKM) using a kerma‐area product (KAP) meter. In addition, potential underestimations of the Ka,i,QKM values by EFs were identified.

Materials and methods

A portable flat‐panel detector (FPD) was placed to measure the X‐ray beam area (A) and EFs dimension at patient entrance reference point (PERP). Afterward, a 6‐cm³ external ionization chamber was placed to measure incident air‐kerma (Ka,i,Qext) at PERP instead of the portable FPD. KAP reading and Ka,i,Qext were simultaneously measured at several X‐ray beam qualities with and without EFs. The X‐ray beam quality correction factor by KAP meter (kQ,Q0KM) was calculated by A, Ka,i,Qext and KAP reading to acquire the KAPQKM and Ka,i,QKM. Upon completion of the measurements, KAPQKM, Ka,i,QKM, and Ka,i,Qext were plotted as functions of tube potential, spectral filter, and EFs dimension. Moreover, Ka,i,QKM/Ka,i,Qext values were calculated to evaluate the Ka,i,QKM underestimation.

Results

The kQ,Q0KM values increased with an increase in the X‐ray tube potential and spectral filter, and the maximum kQ,Q0KM was 1.18. KAPQKM and Ka,i,QKM decreased as functions of EFs dimension, whereas Ka,i,Qext was almost constant. Ka,i,QKM/Ka,i,Qext decreased with an increase in EFs dimension but increased with an increase in tube potential and spectral filter, and the range was 0.55–1.01.

Conclusions

Ka,i,QKM value was up to approximately two times lower than the Ka,i,Qext values by EFs. When using the Ka,i,QKM value, the potential Ka,i,QKM underestimation with EFs should be considered.

The influence of patient size on the overall uncertainty in radiographic dose audit

The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of patient and cohort size on the overall uncertainty associated with dose audit using radiography of the abdomen as the exemplar. Water equivalent diameterDwwas used as the surrogate for patient size and its distribution (σ(Dw)) was used to quantify the effect of sample size. The more precise the kerma area product calibration, the more patients are required in the cohort to have the same impact on the overall uncertainty. Patient sample sizes of 300-400 will result in expanded uncertainties approaching the theoretical limit of double the measurement uncertainty when audits are performed with instruments having measurement uncertainties equal to ±7%, ±10% or ±12.5%. By way of example, for a field instrument with a measurement uncertainty of ±10%, a minimum sample size of 350 is required to achieve a total expanded uncertainty of ±21%. In the case of instruments with associated measurement uncertainty of ±3.5%, patient sample sizes of 300-400 will result in expanded uncertainties of approximately ±10%. From review of the literature and comparison with the results obtained here, it is conjectured that for radiographic dose audits of all parts of the trunk the contribution to overall uncertainty due to patient and sample size could be predicted using an indicative value forσ(Dw) of 3.4 where local data is not available.

Helping to know if you are properly protected while working in interventional cardiology

Occupational protection is still a challenge for interventional cardiology. One of the main problems is the occasional improper use of the ceiling suspended screen. We present a methodology to audit the correct use of the shielding using active electronic dosimeters. To improve the protection, we suggest the use of an alert based on the ratio between the occupational dose per procedure, measured by a personal electronic dosimeter over the lead apron, and the dose measured by an unshielded dosimeter, located at the C-arm. The new electronic dosimeters and the automatic dose management systems allow processing the dosimetric data for individual procedures and for the radiation events, sending the values (wireless) to a central database. We selected six interventional cardiologists and analysed 385 interventional procedures involving about 30 000 radiation events. Our results suggest that for individual procedures, standard values of the ratio between operator dose and the C-arm reference dose, should be between 1%-2% for a proper use of the shielding. Percentage values ≥5%-10% for individual procedures, require an analysis of the different radiation events to identify the lack of occupational protection and suggest corrective actions. In our sample, half of the operators should improve the use of the shielding in around 20% of the procedures. Using this ratio as an alert to operators allows optimising occupational radiation protection and discriminating between high occupational doses derived from complex procedures and high doses due to the improper use of the protective screen.

Radiation Dose of Patients in Fluoroscopically Guided Interventions: an Update

The benefits of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures are significant and have established new standards in the clinical management of many diseases. Despite the benefits, it is known that they come with known risks, such as the exposure to ionizing radiation. To minimize such risks, it is crucial that the health professionals involved in the procedures have a common understanding of the concepts related to radiation protection, such as dose descriptors, diagnostic reference levels and typical dose values. An update about these concepts will be presented with the objective to raise awareness amongst health professionals and contribute to the increase in knowledge, skills and competences in radiation protection in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures.