Warren K Laskey1, Merrill Wondrow, David R Holmes. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA. wlaskey@salud.unm.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess fluoroscopic exposure rates in contemporary cardiac catheterization laboratories (CCL). BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is being focused on X-ray exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic cardiovascular procedures. METHODS: We measured fluoroscopic exposure rates (R/min) in 41 systems using a standardized methodology (National Electrical Manufacturers Association XR21 phantom). Measurements were obtained at 2 different phantom thicknesses to simulate varying patient body habitus. RESULTS: Fluoroscopic exposure rates under medium (median 3.0 R/min, interquartile range 1.4 R/min) and large (median 12.5 R/min, interquartile range 4.8 R/min) habitus conditions showed substantial variation. Fluoroscopic exposure was associated with simulated patient habitus, X-ray system type, vendor, and geographic region. Under medium habitus conditions, only 25% of systems operated within a zone of lower than average exposure rates and satisfactory image quality; this frequency diminished to 7% under large habitus conditions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation (4- to 6-fold) in fluoroscopic exposure rates. This variation was not consistently associated with improved image quality. In the absence of a predictable benefit of higher (or lower) than average exposure rates, CCL quality improvement programs must minimize such potentially harmful variability in X-ray exposure.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess fluoroscopic exposure rates in contemporary cardiac catheterization laboratories (CCL). BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is being focused on X-ray exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic cardiovascular procedures. METHODS: We measured fluoroscopic exposure rates (R/min) in 41 systems using a standardized methodology (National Electrical Manufacturers Association XR21 phantom). Measurements were obtained at 2 different phantom thicknesses to simulate varying patient body habitus. RESULTS: Fluoroscopic exposure rates under medium (median 3.0 R/min, interquartile range 1.4 R/min) and large (median 12.5 R/min, interquartile range 4.8 R/min) habitus conditions showed substantial variation. Fluoroscopic exposure was associated with simulated patient habitus, X-ray system type, vendor, and geographic region. Under medium habitus conditions, only 25% of systems operated within a zone of lower than average exposure rates and satisfactory image quality; this frequency diminished to 7% under large habitus conditions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation (4- to 6-fold) in fluoroscopic exposure rates. This variation was not consistently associated with improved image quality. In the absence of a predictable benefit of higher (or lower) than average exposure rates, CCL quality improvement programs must minimize such potentially harmful variability in X-ray exposure.
Authors: Kevin D Hill; Steve D Mann; Michael P Carboni; Thomas P Doyle; Salim F Idriss; Dana F Janssen; George T Nicholson; Shyam Sathanandam; Greg A Fleming Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna Varghese; Roshan S Livingstone; Lijo Varghese; Parveen Kumar; Sirish Chandra Srinath; Oommen K George; Paul V George Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102