Realistic approach to estimate lens doses and cataract radiation risk in cardiology when personal dosimeters have not been regularly used

Radiation Protection of the Eye Lens in Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures

The medical staff involved in fluoroscopy-guided procedures are at potential risks of radiation-induced cataract. Therefore, proper monitoring of the lens doses is critical, and radiation protection should be provided to the maximum extent that is reasonably achievable. The collar dosimeter is necessary to avoid underestimation of the lens dose, and the third dosimeter behind the protective eyewear would be helpful for those who are likely to exceed the dose limit. The reduction of the patient doses will correspondingly reduce the staff doses. Proper placement of the ceiling-mounted shields and minimization of the face-to-glass gap are the keys to effective shielding. The optimization of procedures and devices that help maintain a distance from the irradiated area and to prevent the looking-up posture will substantially reduce the lens dose.

Comparison of patient and staff temple dose during fluoroscopically guided coronary angiography, implantable cardiac devices, and electrophysiology procedures

There is a paucity of literature comparing patient and staff dose during coronary angiography (CA), implantable cardiac devices, permanent pacemakers (PPM) and electrophysiology (EP) procedures and little noting dose to staff other than cardiologists. This study sought to compare patient and occupational dose during a range of fluoroscopically guided cardiac procedures. Radiation dose levels for the patients (n = 1651), cardiologists (n = 24), scrub (n = 32) and scout nurses (n = 35) were measured in a prospective single-centre study between February 2017 and August 2019. A comparison of dose during CA, device implantation, PPM insertion and EP studies was performed. Three angiographic units were used, with dosimeters worn on the temple of staff. Results indicated that occupational dose during PPM was significantly higher than other procedures. The cardiologist had the highest mean dose during biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillators; levels were approximately five times that of 'normal' pacemaker insertions. Transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) were associated with relatively high mean doses for both staff and patients and had a statistically significant higher (>2 times) mean patient dose area product than all other categories. TAVI workups were also related to higher mean cardiologist and scrub nurse dose. It was observed that the mean scrub nurse dose can exceed that of the cardiologist. The highest mean dose for Scout nurses were recorded during EP studies. Given the significantly higher temple dose associated with PPM insertion, cardiologists should consider utilizing ceiling mounted lead shields, lead glasses and/or skull caps where possible. Efforts should also be made to minimize the use of DSA during TAVI and TAVI workups to reduce cardiologist, nurse and patient dose.

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 protection knowledge and practices in interventional cardiologists practicing in Africa: a cross sectional survey

We conducted a survey of doctors working in the cardiac catheterisation laboratories in Africa on their knowledge, attitude and practice with respect to radiation protection. Of seventy-two respondents contacted, 61 (84.7%) completed the questionnaire. Twenty-eight, (45.9%) were younger than 45 years. Thirty-seven, (60.6%) had less than 10 years of experience in the laboratory. Only 28 (45.9%) had undertaken radiation protection training. Fifty-eight, (95.1%) consistently used lead aprons. Forty-seven, (77%) reported consistently using thyroid shields. Ten (16.4%) consistently used radiation protection eyeglasses, whilst 36 (59%) never used them. Thermoluminescent Dosimeter badges were consistently used in 23 (37.7%). Forty-two, (68.9%) reported having ceiling mounted lead/acrylic shields. Level of radiation exposure in the most recent one year was ≤2 mSv in 14, between 2 and 20 mSv in 8 and between 20 and 30 mSv in 2, whilst 33 did not know their dose readings. The use of basic radiation protection tools as well as the knowledge and measurement of radiation exposure among interventional cardiologists working in Africa is low. The unavailability of some of the protective tools and a knowledge gap in terms of radiation protection and monitoring of self-exposure were some of the reasons for suboptimal self-protection against ionising radiation among our respondents. We suggest that initiatives be taken by all stakeholders to train this group of medical professionals in basic radiation protection to avoid unnecessary exposure to themselves, co-workers and patients.

Assessment of the Annual Eye Lens Dose for Cardiologists During Interventional Procedures Using Anthropomorphic Phantoms and mEyeDose_X Tool

OBJECTIVES

In this study, eye lens dose measurements were performed using two anthropomorphic phantoms simulating the cardiologist and patient during interventional procedures.

BACKGROUND

Interventional procedures known as areas with high potential risk and the cardiologists can receive relatively high doses to their eyes.

METHODS

This study was comprised of both phantom and computer simulations. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and mEyeDose_X tool were used to measure and calculate eye lens doses for the cardiologist. 144 TLDs measurements were performed using cardiac protocol for three angiographic projections: anterior-posterior (AP), left anterior oblique 90° (LAO90) and left anterior oblique 45° with cranial 30° (spider) angulations. All cine and fluoroscopy modes including the projections used in this study performed with and without protection tools.

RESULTS

The annual equivalent doses with protective tools using mEyeDose_X were found to be 1.831 and 1.424 mSv/year, whereas the values using phantom were found to be 2.204 and 1.802 mSv/year for the lens of lift and right eye respectively.

CONCLUSION

The annual doses reported in this study are almost comparable to other studies performed on interventional cardiology (IC) procedures. The highest dose rate in the lens was 20.21 ± 0.015 mSv/h without protective tools in cine mode for spider projection. Cardiologists may therefore easily exceed the lens dose limit if protective tools are not used.

Surgeon eye lens dose monitoring in catheterization lab: A multi-center survey: Invited for ECMP 2018 Focus Issue

PURPOSE

To perform a multi-centre survey on the eye lens equivalent dose absorbed by primary interventionalist during catheterization procedures, using a personal dosimeter placed close to the eye lens.

METHODS

15 different cardiologists working in 3 different centers, for a total of 5 operating rooms were enrolled. All of them were provided with a single thermoluminescent dosimeter positioned on the inner side of the temples of eyeglasses. The dose monitoring, performed on a two-months basis, started in 2016 and is still running. All dose measurements were performed by a ISO 17025 standard accredited dosimetry service thus providing certified uncertainties as well. Correlation of eye lens and wrist dose with KAP was also investigated.

RESULTS

A total number of 101 eye lens measurements were performed. Annual eye lens dose estimation was obtained for all 15 surgeons (mean, mode, range, standard deviation: 10.8, 8, 4.9-27.3, 5.6  mSv, respectively). Uncertainties on annual eye lens dose estimations ranged between 10% and 20%. No significant correlation was found between eye lens dose and KAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiologists involved in catheterization procedures may receive annual eye lens doses close to the ICRP 118 dose limit and thus individual monitoring with a dedicated dosimeter should be carried out. Uncertainty assessment play a relevant role in eye lens equivalent dose estimation to ensure not to exceed dose limit.

OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DURING ADULT INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY: FIRST VALUES WITH PERSONAL ACTIVE DOSIMETERS IN CHILE

The objective of this article is to present initial occupational dose values using digital active personal dosimeters for medical staff during adult interventional cardiology procedures in a public hospital in Chile. Personal dose equivalent Hp(10) over the lead apron of physician, nurse and radiographer were measured during 59 procedures. Mean values of occupational dose Hp(10) per procedure were 47.6, 6.2 and 4.3 μSv for physician, nurse and radiographer, respectively. If no protective tools are used, physician dose can exceed the new eye lens dose limit.

Strategies to optimise occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology using simultaneous registration of patient and staff doses

The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends that occupational protection and patient protection be managed in an integrated approach. This paper describes the experience and the initial results of a system able to register and to process simultaneously staff and patient doses in interventional cardiology and the practical use of this system in the optimisation of occupational exposure. The system used simultaneously collects and manages patient and staff doses for all radiation events. The personal electronic dosimeters worn over the protective apron of health professionals working inside catheterisation laboratories can send (wireless) doses and dose rate values to an X-hub and provide the operators inside the catheterisation rooms with real-time information. Individual and global reports for all the health professionals may be periodically obtained from the system to help with the optimisation. The results for eight cardiologists, one fellow and four nurses for a total of 2468 interventional cardiology procedures and 3207 occupational dose values collected over one year are presented here. Annual doses Hp(10) measured over the apron for cardiologists ranged from 0.3 to 6.3 mSv. For the cardiologist, the ratio between occupational doses (over the apron) and patient doses ranged from 0.05 to 0.23 μSv Gy^-1 cm^-2, with a mean value of 0.12 μSv Gy^-1 cm^-2. The system allows defining optimisation strategies by comparing the results between the different operators while considering the workload and complexity of the procedures (based on the total Kerma Area Product managed by the different operators). The registration of the date and time of the occupational radiation doses allows auditing the use of the personal dosimeters worn by the various operators.

RESULTS FROM A NEW METHOD TO ASSESS THE OCCUPATIONAL LENS DOSE IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY

Interventional radiology procedures have always been of particular concern because of the potential high dose to the workers. Special attention has recently been given to the lens dose: in 2011 the ICRP issued the recommendation 'Statement on Tissue Reactions' where a new limit of 20 mSv in a year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, is given. Due to the impossibility of measuring the dose directly on the eye, there is not still a general consensus on a standardized methodology to assess the lens dose, which should be at the same time reliable, robust and simple to implement in practice. The procedure described here aims to assess the lens dose using the Hp(0.07) equivalent dose measured with a dosimeter worn at chest level above the lead apron, through a correlation with the total KAP per procedure and considering the type of the protection tools used during each procedure: glasses (with lateral shields), ceiling screen, both or neither of them and the frequency of their use.

Report of IRPA task group on the impact of the eye lens dose limits

In 2012 IRPA established a task group (TG) to identify key issues in the implementation of the revised eye lens dose limit. The TG reported its conclusions in 2013. In January 2015, IRPA asked the TG to review progress with the implementation of the recommendations from the early report and to collate current practitioner experience. This report presents the results of a survey on the view of the IRPA professionals on the new limit to the lens of the eye and on the wider issue of tissue reactions. Recommendations derived from the survey are presented. This report was approved by IRPA Executive Council on 31 January 2017.

Occupational dose reduction in cardiac catheterisation laboratory: a randomised trial using a shield drape placed on the patient

The aim of this study was to evaluate the occupational radiation dose in interventional cardiology by using a shielding drape on the patient. A random study with and without the protective material was conducted. The following control parameters were registered: demographic data, number of stents, contrast media volume, fluoroscopy time, number of cine images, kerma-area product and cumulative air kerma. Occupational dose data were obtained by electronic active dosemeters. No statistically significant differences in the analysed control parameters were registered. The median dose value received by the interventional cardiologist was 50% lower in the group with a shielding drape with a statistically significant p-value <0.001. In addition, the median value of the maximum scatter radiation dose was 31% lower in this group with a statistically significant p-value <0.001. This study showed that a shielding drape is a useful tool for reducing the occupational radiation dose in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory.

ON-FIELD EVALUATION OF OPERATOR LENS PROTECTIVE DEVICES IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY

The recent publication of the Euratom Directive 2013/59, adopting the reduction of eye lens dose limits from 150 to 20 mSv y^-1, calls for the development of new tools and methodologies for evaluating the eye lens dose absorbed by the medical staff involved in interventional radiology practices. Moreover, the effectiveness of the protective devices, like leaded glasses, which can be employed for radiation protection purposes, must be tested under typical exposure scenarios. In this work, eye lens dose measurements were carried out on an anthropomorphic phantom simulating a physician bound to perform standard interventional neuroradiology angiographic procedures. The correlation between eye lens doses, in terms of Hp(0.07), and the equivalent dose [again in terms of Hp(0.07)] monthly measured with thermoluminescent dosemeters placed above the lead apron at the chest level was studied, in the presence and in the absence of different types of leaded glasses.

InterCardioRisk: a novel online tool for estimating doses of ionising radiation to occupationally-exposed medical staff and their associated health risks

Those working in interventional cardiology and related medical procedures are potentially subject to considerable exposure to x-rays. Two types of tissue of particular concern that may receive considerable doses during such procedures are the lens of the eye and the brain. Ocular radiation exposure results in lens changes that, with time, may progress to partial or total lens opacification (cataracts). In the early stages, such opacities do not result in visual disability; the severity of such changes tends to increase progressively with dose and time until vision is impaired and cataract surgery is required. Scattered radiation doses to the eye lens of an interventional cardiologist in typical working conditions can exceed 34 μGy min^-1 in high-dose fluoroscopy modes and 3 μGy per image during image acquisition (instantaneous rate values) when radiation protection tools are not used. A causal relation between exposure to ionising radiation and increased risk of brain and central nervous system tumours has been shown in a number of studies. Although absorbed doses to the brain in interventional cardiology procedures are lower than those to the eye lens by a factor between 3.40 and 8.08 according to our simulations, doses to both tissues are among the highest occupational radiation doses documented for medical staff whose work involves exposures to x-rays. We present InterCardioRisk, a tool featuring an easy-to-use web interface that provides a general estimation of both cumulated absorbed doses experienced by medical staff exposed in the interventional cardiology setting and their estimated associated health risks. The tool is available at http://intercardiorisk.creal.cat.

Occupational eye lens doses in interventional cardiology. A multicentric study

New European regulation regarding radiological protection of workers and more specifically the new occupational dose limit for the eye lens recently reduced to 20 mSv yr(-1) may affect interventional cardiologists. This paper presents a set of measurements of occupational doses performed in five interventional cardiology centres and then compared with the new dose limit. The measurement of occupational doses was performed over the apron at chest level using electronic dosemeters recording H p(10). In one of the centres, scatter dose at goggles was also measured with optically stimulated luminescence dosemeters calibrated in terms of H p(0.07). An average H p(10) over the apron of 46 μSv/procedure was measured for cardiologists. Lower doses were noted in other professionals like second cardiologists, nurses or anaesthetists. Procedures for valvular and other structural heart diseases involved the highest occupational doses, averaging over 100 μSv/procedure. Important differences in occupational doses among centres may be indicative of different radiation protection habits. The new occupational dose limit for the eye lens is likely to be exceeded by those among the interventionalists who do not use protection tools (ceiling suspended screen and/or goggles) even with standard workloads.

Staff lens doses in interventional urology. A comparison with interventional radiology, cardiology and vascular surgery values

The purpose of this work is to evaluate radiation doses to the lens of urologists during interventional procedures and to compare them with values measured during interventional radiology, cardiology and vascular surgery. The measurements were carried out in a surgical theatre using a mobile C-arm system and electronic occupational dosimeters (worn over the lead apron). Patient and staff dose measurements were collected in a sample of 34 urology interventions (nephrolithotomies). The same dosimetry system was used in other medical specialties for comparison purposes. Median and 3rd quartile values for urology procedures were: patient doses 30 and 40 Gy cm(2); personal dose equivalent Hp(10) over the apron (μSv/procedure): 393 and 848 (for urologists); 21 and 39 (for nurses). Median values of over apron dose per procedure for urologists resulted 18.7 times higher than those measured for radiologists and cardiologists working with proper protection (using ceiling suspended screens) in catheterisation laboratories, and 4.2 times higher than the values measured for vascular surgeons at the same hospital. Comparison with passive dosimeters worn near the eyes suggests that dosimeters worn over the apron could be a reasonable conservative estimate for ocular doses for interventional urology. Authors recommend that at least the main surgeon uses protective eyewear during interventional urology procedures.

Correlation between scatter radiation dose at height of operator's eye and dose to patient for different angiographic projections

Studies have reported cases of radiation-induced cataract among cardiology professionals. In view of the evidence of epidemiological studies, the ICRP recommends a new threshold for opacities and a new radiation dose to eye lens limit of 20mSv per year for occupational exposure. The aim of this paper is to report scattered radiation doses at the height of the operator's eye in an interventional cardiology facility without considering radiation protection devices and to correlate these values with different angiographic projections and operational modes. Measurements were taken in a cardiac laboratory with an angiography X-ray system equipped with flat-panel detector. PMMA plates of 30×30×5cm were used with a thickness of 20cm. Measurements were taken in two fluoroscopy modes (low and normal, 15pulses/s) and in cine mode (15frames/s). Four angiographic projections were used: anterior posterior; lateral; left anterior oblique caudal (spider); and left anterior oblique cranial, with a cardiac protocol for patients weighing between 70 and 90kg. Measurements of phantom entrance dose rate and scatter dose rate were performed with two Unfors Xi plus detectors. The detector measuring scatter radiation was positioned at the usual distance of the cardiologist's eyes during working conditions. There is a good linear correlation between the kerma area product and scatter dose at the lens. Experimental correlation factors of 2.3, 12.0, 12.2 and 17.6μSv/Gycm2 were found for different projections. PMMA entrance dose rates for low and medium fluoroscopy and cine modes were 13, 39 and 282mGy/min, respectively, for AP projection.

A set of patient and staff dose data for validation of Monte Carlo calculations in interventional cardiology

The purpose of this paper is to report a set of experimental values of patient and staff doses in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory using the range of radiographic and geometric parameters from routine clinical practice. The data obtained will be available for validation of Monte Carlo calculations and for training purposes. They will also help optimise radiation protection for patients and staff. Experimental measurements were made with an anthropomorphic phantom, and a monoplane flat detector-based X-ray system was used for interventional cardiology procedures. Standard operational protocols used in clinical practice were applied. Around 1000 patient dose and 5000 staff dose values were measured for different operational conditions (angulations, distances, collimation and wedge filter, magnification, phantom thicknesses, using Copper absorber, etc.). Uncertainties were also estimated. Increase factors of 3-10 for patients and staff doses were measured for the different C-arm angulations.

Implications in medical imaging of the new ICRP thresholds for tissue reactions

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) statement on tissue reactions, issued by the Commission in April 2011, reviewed epidemiological evidence and suggested that there are some tissue reactions where threshold doses are or may be lower than those previously considered. For the lens of the eye, the threshold is now considered to be 0.5 Gy. The absorbed dose threshold for circulatory disease in the heart and brain may be as low as 0.5 Gy. These values can be reached in some patients during interventional cardiology or neuroradiology procedures. They may also be of concern for repeated computed tomography examinations of the head. The new thresholds should be considered in optimisation strategies for clinical procedures, especially in patients likely to require repeated interventions. The new dose thresholds also affect occupational protection for operators and staff. Some operators do not protect their eyes or their brain adequately. After several years of work without proper protection, the absorbed doses to the lens of the eye and the brain of staff can exceed 0.5 Gy. More research is needed to understand the biological effects of cumulative incident air kerma and the instantaneous air kerma rates currently used in medical imaging. The new thresholds, and the need for specific occupational dosimetry related to lens doses, should be considered in radiation protection programmes, and should be included in the education and training of professionals involved in fluoroscopy guided procedures and computed tomography.

Implications in dosimetry of the implementation of the revised dose limit to the lens of the eye

In 2012, International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) established a Task Group to provide an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the ICRP-revised dose limit for the lens of the eye for occupational exposure. Associated Societies (ASs) of IRPA were asked to provide views and comments on the basis of a questionnaire addressing three principal topics: (i) implications for dosimetry, (ii) implications for methods of protection and (iii) wider implications of implementing the revised limits. A summary of the collated responses regarding dosimetry is presented and discussed. There is large agreement on the most critical aspects and difficulties in setting up an appropriate monitoring programme for the lens of the eyes. The recent international standards and technical documents provide guidance for some of the concerns but other challenges remain in terms of awareness, acceptance and practicalities.

Influence of dosemeter position for the assessment of eye lens dose during interventional cardiology

The equivalent dose limit for the eye lens for occupational exposure recommended by the ICRP has been reduced to 20 mSv y(-1) averaged over defined periods of 5 y, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv. The compliance with this new requirement could not be easy in some workplace such as interventional radiology and cardiology. The aim of this study is to evaluate different possible approaches in order to have a good estimate of the eye lens dose during interventional procedures. Measurements were performed with an X-ray system Philips Allura FD-10, using a PMMA phantom to simulate the patient scattered radiation and a Rando phantom to simulate the cardiologist. Thermoluminescence (TL) whole-body and TL eye lens dosemeters together with Philips DoseAware active dosemeters were located on different positions of the Rando phantom to estimate the eye lens dose in typical cardiology procedures. The results show that, for the studied conditions, any of the analysed dosemeter positions are suitable for eye lens dose assessment. However, the centre of the thyroid collar and the left ear position provide a better estimate. Furthermore, in practice, improper use of the ceiling-suspended screen can produce partial protection of some parts of the body, and thus large differences between the measured doses and the actual exposure of the eye could arise if the dosemeter is not situated close to the eye.

A proposed method for retrospective eye dose assessments for the purposes of resolving cataract compensation claims

The 2011 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) statement on tissue reactions suggested a significant reduction in the threshold dose for radiation induced cataracts. This, combined with the potential for a long delay between exposure and cataract diagnosis, may result in an increased requirement to evaluate eye dose from past exposures in order to settle current compensation claims. This article highlights how compensation claims relating to radiation exposure are assessed within the UK legal system and suggests that in vivo Electro Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) dosimetry of teeth has utility for the retrospective quantification of radiation doses to the eye. It was identified that in vivo EPR in its current form may be sufficiently sensitive to support cataract compensation claims, although further work is required to enable appropriate dose conversion coefficients to be quantified.

Eye dosimetry in interventional radiology and cardiology: current challenges and practical considerations

Interventional radiology and cardiology are areas with high potential for risk to eye lens. Accurate assessment of eye dose is one of the most important aspects of correlating doses with observed lens opacities among workers in interventional suites and ascertaining compliance with regulatory limits. The purpose of this paper is to review current approaches and opportunities in eye dosimetry and assess challenges in particular in accuracy and practicality. The possible approaches include practical dosimetry using passive dosemeters or active dosemeters with obvious advantage of active dosimetry. When neither of these is available, other approaches are based on either retrospective dose assessment using scatter radiation dose levels or correlations between patient dose indices and eye doses to the operators. In spite of all uncertainties and variations, estimation of eye dose from patient dose can be accepted as a compromise. Future challenges include development of practical methods for regular monitoring of individual eye doses and development of better techniques to estimate eye dose from measurements at some reference points.