Cardiac imaging modalities with ionizing radiation: the role of informed consent

SURVEY OF KEY RADIATION SAFETY PRACTICES IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY: AN IRISH AND ENGLISH STUDY

Interventional radiology is a rapidly evolving speciality with potential to deliver high patient radiation doses, as a result high standards of radiation safety practice are imperative. IR radiation safety practice must be considered before during and after procedures through appropriate patient consent, dose monitoring and patient follow-up. This questionnaire-based study surveyed fixed IR departments across Ireland and England to establish clinical practice in relation to radiation safety. Pre-procedure IR patient consent includes all radiation effects in 11% of cases. The patient skin dose surrogate parameter of Kerma to air at a reference point (Kar) is under-reported. Only 39% of respondents use a substantial radiation dose level and inform patients after these have been reached. Poor compliance with unambiguous, readily available best practice guidance was observed throughout highlighting patient communication, patient dose quantification and subsequent patient dose management concerns.

Radiation-Induced Heart Diseases: Protective Effects of Natural Products

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) account for the majority of deaths worldwide. Radiation-induced heart diseases (RIHD) is one of the side effects following exposure to ionizing radiation (IR). Exposure could be from various forms such as diagnostic imaging, radiotherapy for cancer treatment, as well as nuclear disasters and nuclear accidents. RIHD is mostly observed after radiotherapy for thoracic malignancies, especially left breast cancer. RIHD may affect the supply of blood to heart muscles, leading to an increase in the risk of heart attacks to irradiated persons. Due to its dose-limiting consequence, RIHD has a negative effect on the therapeutic efficacy of radiotherapy. Several methods have been proposed for protection against RIHD. In this paper, we review the use of natural products, which have shown promising results for protection against RIHD.

Duty to Inform and Informed Consent in Diagnostic Radiology: How Ethics and Law can Better Guide Practice

Although there is consensus on the fact that ionizing radiation used in radiological examinations can affect health, the stochastic (random) nature of risk makes it difficult to anticipate and assess specific health implications for patients. The issue of radiation protection is peculiar as any dosage received in life is cumulative, the sensitivity to radiation is highly variable from one person to another, and between 20 % and 50 % of radiological examinations appear not to be necessary. In this context, one might reasonably assume that information and patient consent would play an important role in regulating radiological practice. However, there is to date no clear consensus regarding the nature and content of-or even need for-consent by patients exposed to ionizing radiation. While law and ethics support the same principles for respecting the dignity of the person (inviolability and integrity), in the context of radiology practice, they do not provide a consistent message to guide clinical decision-making. This article analyzes the issue of healthcare professionals' duty to inform and obtain patient consent for radiological examinations. Considering that both law and ethics have as one of their aims to protect vulnerable populations, it is important that they begin to give greater attention to issues raised by the use of ionizing radiation in medicine. While the situation in Canada serves as a backdrop for a reflective analysis of the problem, the conclusions are pertinent for professional practice in other jurisdictions because the principles underlying health law and jurisprudence are fairly general.

Cardiovascular diseases related to ionizing radiation: The risk of low-dose exposure (Review)

Traditionally, non-cancer diseases are not considered as health risks following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. Indeed, non-cancer diseases are classified as deterministic tissue reactions, which are characterized by a threshold dose. It is judged that below an absorbed dose of 100 mGy, no clinically relevant tissue damage occurs, forming the basis for the current radiation protection system concerning non-cancer effects. Recent epidemiological findings point, however, to an excess risk of non-cancer diseases following exposure to lower doses of ionizing radiation than was previously thought. The evidence is the most sound for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cataract. Due to limited statistical power, the dose-risk relationship is undetermined below 0.5 Gy; however, if this relationship proves to be without a threshold, it may have considerable impact on current low-dose health risk estimates. In this review, we describe the CVD risk related to low doses of ionizing radiation, the clinical manifestation and the pathology of radiation-induced CVD, as well as the importance of the endothelium models in CVD research as a way forward to complement the epidemiological data with the underlying biological and molecular mechanisms.

Patient-centered imaging: shared decision making for cardiac imaging procedures with exposure to ionizing radiation

The current paper details the recommendations arising from an NIH-NHLBI/NCI-sponsored symposium held in November 2012, aiming to identify key components of a radiation accountability framework fostering patient-centered imaging and shared decision-making in cardiac imaging. Symposium participants, working in 3 tracks, identified key components of a framework to target critical radiation safety issues for the patient, the laboratory, and the larger population of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. The use of ionizing radiation during an imaging procedure should be disclosed to all patients by the ordering provider at the time of ordering, and reinforced by the performing provider team. An imaging protocol with effective dose ≤3 mSv is considered very low risk, not warranting extensive discussion or written informed consent. However, a protocol effective dose >20 mSv was proposed as a level requiring particular attention in terms of shared decision-making and either formal discussion or written informed consent. Laboratory reporting of radiation dosimetry is a critical component of creating a quality laboratory fostering a patient-centered environment with transparent procedural methodology. Efforts should be directed to avoiding testing involving radiation, in patients with inappropriate indications. Standardized reporting and diagnostic reference levels for computed tomography and nuclear cardiology are important for the goal of public reporting of laboratory radiation dose levels in conjunction with diagnostic performance. The development of cardiac imaging technologies revolutionized cardiology practice by allowing routine, noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and anatomy. It is now incumbent upon the imaging community to create an accountability framework to safely drive appropriate imaging utilization.

Paediatric cardiac catheterization: an information sheet

The need to inform patients using validated scientific data is acknowledged internationally. The obligation to inform patients is based on a fundamental principle of French law: the principle of the unavailability of the human body. Before engaging in diagnostic or therapeutic strategies such as paediatric cardiac catheterization, the healthcare professional must explain the disease, the advantages and drawbacks of each treatment strategy and their foreseeable benefit/risk ratio in order to help older children and their parents come to a decision. To obtain this required consent and before the care is provided, the infant and their legal representative must have received clear, accurate and understandable information. An information sheet cannot substitute for verbal information. Guidelines for good practices on the delivery of information have been established by the Health Authorities and officially recognized in a decree from the Ministry of Health. These documents allow professionals to draft a written information document for patients and healthcare users. This document must help the patient to take part in decisions that concern them. The law of 4th March 2002 regarding the rights of patients and the quality of the healthcare system states that 'in cases of litigation, it is the responsibility of the professional or the healthcare establishment to provide proof that the information was given to the person concerned in the conditions set out in the present article. This proof can be brought by any means'.