Nicholas Dainiak1, Paul Berger, Joseph Albanese. 1. Department of Medicine, Bridgeport Hospital and Yale University School of Medicine, Bridgeport, CT 06610, USA. pndain@bpthosp.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Local, regional, and federal response teams play an integrated role in the early management of mass casualties from a radiologic incident. Evaluation of individuals exposed to ionizing radiation requires an assessment of clinical signs and symptoms and an estimation of radiation dose. Here, we determine the relevance and feasibility of multi-parameter assessment for management of mass casualties from a radiological event. METHOD: An assessment of the value of signs and symptoms and of individual biological dosimetry is made. To determine the feasibility of applying dosimetric data in a mass casualty event, a survey was conducted of the 32 clinical laboratories meeting criteria in the State of Connecticut. Following completion of a training program, a functional drill was conducted to determine efficacy of training and proficiency of sample preparation for the cytogenetic bioassay. RESULTS: Based upon reliability and timeliness of clinical information and dosimetric data, it is evident that both forms of data should be provided in a mass casualty scenario. A needs assessment of clinical laboratories in Connecticut identified 30 of 32 clinical laboratories that were qualified and willing to perform initial processing of biodosimetry specimens. Currently, 79 laboratory professionals in 19 of the qualified clinical laboratories were trained in specimen processing. Of these individuals, 37 participated in a functional drill that demonstrated an acceptable cell viability (>95%) and turnaround time for samples (199 minutes). CONCLUSION: Multi-parameter assessment provides useful information to clinicians caring for mass casualties from a radiological event. Assessment of individual radiation dose by the cytogenetic bioassay is made more feasible by building clinical laboratory surge capacity.
OBJECTIVE: Local, regional, and federal response teams play an integrated role in the early management of mass casualties from a radiologic incident. Evaluation of individuals exposed to ionizing radiation requires an assessment of clinical signs and symptoms and an estimation of radiation dose. Here, we determine the relevance and feasibility of multi-parameter assessment for management of mass casualties from a radiological event. METHOD: An assessment of the value of signs and symptoms and of individual biological dosimetry is made. To determine the feasibility of applying dosimetric data in a mass casualty event, a survey was conducted of the 32 clinical laboratories meeting criteria in the State of Connecticut. Following completion of a training program, a functional drill was conducted to determine efficacy of training and proficiency of sample preparation for the cytogenetic bioassay. RESULTS: Based upon reliability and timeliness of clinical information and dosimetric data, it is evident that both forms of data should be provided in a mass casualty scenario. A needs assessment of clinical laboratories in Connecticut identified 30 of 32 clinical laboratories that were qualified and willing to perform initial processing of biodosimetry specimens. Currently, 79 laboratory professionals in 19 of the qualified clinical laboratories were trained in specimen processing. Of these individuals, 37 participated in a functional drill that demonstrated an acceptable cell viability (>95%) and turnaround time for samples (199 minutes). CONCLUSION: Multi-parameter assessment provides useful information to clinicians caring for mass casualties from a radiological event. Assessment of individual radiation dose by the cytogenetic bioassay is made more feasible by building clinical laboratory surge capacity.
Authors: Nicholas Dainiak; Robert Nicolas Gent; Zhanat Carr; Rita Schneider; Judith Bader; Elena Buglova; Nelson Chao; C Norman Coleman; Arnold Ganser; Claude Gorin; Martin Hauer-Jensen; L Andrew Huff; Patricia Lillis-Hearne; Kazuhiko Maekawa; Jeffrey Nemhauser; Ray Powles; Holger Schünemann; Alla Shapiro; Leif Stenke; Nelson Valverde; David Weinstock; Douglas White; Joseph Albanese; Viktor Meineke Journal: Disaster Med Public Health Prep Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 1.385
Authors: David M Weinstock; Cullen Case; Judith L Bader; Nelson J Chao; C Norman Coleman; Richard J Hatchett; Daniel J Weisdorf; Dennis L Confer Journal: Blood Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sarah K Meadows; Holly K Dressman; Pamela Daher; Heather Himburg; J Lauren Russell; Phuong Doan; Nelson J Chao; Joseph Lucas; Joseph R Nevins; John P Chute Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-07-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sagar Bhayana; Feifei Song; Jidhin Jacob; Paolo Fadda; Nicholas C Denko; Meng Xu-Welliver; Arnab Chakravarti; Naduparambil K Jacob Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Naresh Menon; Claude J Rogers; Agnes I Lukaszewicz; James Axtelle; Marshleen Yadav; Feifei Song; Arnab Chakravarti; Naduparambil K Jacob Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240