Literature DB >> 12817038

Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose.

Donald L Miller1, Stephen Balter, Patricia E Cole, Hollington T Lu, Beth A Schueler, Michael Geisinger, Alejandro Berenstein, Robin Albert, Jeffrey D Georgia, Patrick T Noonan, John F Cardella, James St George, Eric J Russell, Tim W Malisch, Robert L Vogelzang, George L Miller, Jon Anderson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine patient radiation doses for interventional radiology and neuroradiology procedures, to identify procedures associated with higher radiation doses, and to determine the effects of various parameters on patient doses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed at seven academic medical centers. Each site contributed demographic and radiation dose data for subjects undergoing specific procedures in fluoroscopic suites equipped with built-in cumulative dose (CD) and dose-area-product (DAP) measurement capability compliant with International Electrotechnical Commission standard 60601-2-43. The accuracy of the dosimetry was confirmed by comprehensive measurements and by frequent consistency checks performed over the course of the study.
RESULTS: Data were collected on 2,142 instances of interventional radiology procedures, 48 comprehensive physics evaluations, and 581 periodic consistency checks from the 12 fluoroscopic units in the study. There were wide variations in dose and statistically significant differences in fluoroscopy time, number of images, DAP, and CD for different instances of the same procedure, depending on the nature of the lesion, its anatomic location, and the complexity of the procedure. For the 2,142 instances, observed CD and DAP correlate well overall (r = 0.83, P <.000001), but correlation in individual instances is poor. The same is true for the correlation between fluoroscopy time and CD (r = 0.79, P <.000001). The correlation between fluoroscopy time and DAP (r = 0.60, P <.000001) is not as good. In 6% of instances (128 of 2,142), which were principally embolization procedures, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedures, and renal/visceral artery stent placements, CD was greater than 5 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS: Most procedures studied can result in clinically significant radiation dose to the patient, even when performed by trained operators with use of dose-reducing technology and modern fluoroscopic equipment. Embolization procedures, TIPS creation, and renal/visceral artery stent placement are associated with a substantial likelihood of clinically significant patient dose. At minimum, patient dose data should be recorded in the medical record for these three types of procedures. These data should include indicators of the risk of deterministic effects as well as the risk of stochastic effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12817038     DOI: 10.1097/01.rvi.0000079980.80153.4b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1051-0443            Impact factor:   3.464


  77 in total

1.  Relation between projection positions and X-ray radiation doses during placement of the coronary sinus mapping electrode.

Authors:  Gang Lin; Jian-Fei Huang; Hui-He Lu; Lin-Sheng Shi; Jue Wang; Shu-Qing Zhang
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Performing MR-guided biopsies in clinical routine: factors that influence accuracy and procedure time.

Authors:  Rüdiger Hoffmann; Christoph Thomas; Hansjörg Rempp; Diethard Schmidt; Philippe L Pereira; Claus D Claussen; Stephan Clasen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Fluoroscopic sentinel events in neuroendovascular procedures: how to screen, prevent, and address occurrence.

Authors:  A Z Vance; B D Weinberg; G M Arbique; J B Guild; J A Anderson; D P Chason
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Risk of deterministic effects during endovascular aortic stent graft implantation.

Authors:  D Kuhelj; U Zdesar; V Jevtic; D Skrk; G Omahen; D Zontar; M Surlan; M Glusic; P Popovic; I J Kocijancic; V Salapura
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Radiation risk from fluoroscopically-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  J P Chitnavis; A Karthikesalingam; A Karthikesaligam; A Macdonald; C Brown
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 6.  Occupational radiation doses to operators performing fluoroscopically-guided procedures.

Authors:  Kwang Pyo Kim; Donald L Miller; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Stephen Balter; Ruth A Kleinerman; Evgenia Ostroumova; Steven L Simon; Martha S Linet
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.316

7.  Radiation exposure and safety practices during pediatric central line placement.

Authors:  Melody R Saeman; Lorrie S Burkhalter; Timothy J Blackburn; Joseph T Murphy
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 2.545

8.  3D cerebral angiography: radiation dose comparison with digital subtraction angiography.

Authors:  Beth A Schueler; David F Kallmes; Harry J Cloft
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  How to set up and apply reference levels in fluoroscopy at a national level.

Authors:  A Aroua; H Rickli; J-C Stauffer; P Schnyder; P R Trueb; J-F Valley; P Vock; F R Verdun
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Radiation dose to the brain and subsequent risk of developing brain tumors in pediatric patients undergoing interventional neuroradiology procedures.

Authors:  I Thierry-Chef; S L Simon; C E Land; D L Miller
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.841

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.