Donald L Miller1, Deukwoo Kwon, Grant H Bonavia. 1. Department of Radiology, National Naval Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20889-5601, USA. donald.miller@med.navy.mil
Abstract
PURPOSE: To propose initial values for patient reference levels for fluoroscopically guided procedures in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis of data from the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Procedures (RAD-IR) study was conducted under a protocol approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Dose distributions (percentiles) were calculated for each type of procedure in the RAD-IR study where there were data from at least 30 cases. Confidence intervals for the dose distributions were determined by using bootstrap resampling. Weight banding and size correction methods for normalizing dose to patient body habitus were tested. RESULTS: The different methods for normalizing patient radiation dose according to patient weight gave results that were not significantly different (P > .05). The 75th percentile patient radiation doses normalized with weight banding were not significantly different from those that were uncorrected for body habitus. Proposed initial reference levels for various interventional procedures are provided for reference air kerma, kerma-area product, fluoroscopy time, and number of images. CONCLUSION: Sufficient data exist to permit an initial proposal of values for reference levels for interventional radiologic procedures in the United States. For ease of use, reference levels without correction for body habitus are recommended. A national registry of radiation-dose data for interventional radiologic procedures is a necessary next step to refine these reference levels.
PURPOSE: To propose initial values for patient reference levels for fluoroscopically guided procedures in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis of data from the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Procedures (RAD-IR) study was conducted under a protocol approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Dose distributions (percentiles) were calculated for each type of procedure in the RAD-IR study where there were data from at least 30 cases. Confidence intervals for the dose distributions were determined by using bootstrap resampling. Weight banding and size correction methods for normalizing dose to patient body habitus were tested. RESULTS: The different methods for normalizing patient radiation dose according to patient weight gave results that were not significantly different (P > .05). The 75th percentile patient radiation doses normalized with weight banding were not significantly different from those that were uncorrected for body habitus. Proposed initial reference levels for various interventional procedures are provided for reference air kerma, kerma-area product, fluoroscopy time, and number of images. CONCLUSION: Sufficient data exist to permit an initial proposal of values for reference levels for interventional radiologic procedures in the United States. For ease of use, reference levels without correction for body habitus are recommended. A national registry of radiation-dose data for interventional radiologic procedures is a necessary next step to refine these reference levels.
Authors: Donald L Miller; Stephen Balter; Patricia E Cole; Hollington T Lu; Alejandro Berenstein; Robin Albert; Beth A Schueler; Jeffrey D Georgia; Patrick T Noonan; Eric J Russell; Tim W Malisch; Robert L Vogelzang; Michael Geisinger; John F Cardella; James St George; George L Miller; Jon Anderson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Donald L Miller; Stephen Balter; Louis K Wagner; John Cardella; Timothy W I Clark; Calvin D Neithamer; Marc S Schwartzberg; Timothy L Swan; Richard B Towbin; Kenneth S Rholl; David Sacks Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Marco Brambilla; Giuseppe Marano; Marco Dominietto; Antonio Raffaele Cotroneo; Alessandro Carriero Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Eliseo Vano; R Sanchez; J M Fernandez; J J Gallego; J F Verdu; M Gonzalez de Garay; A Azpiazu; A Segarra; M T Hernandez; M Canis; F Diaz; F Moreno; J Palmero Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Donald L Miller; 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 Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: V Neofotistou; E Vano; R Padovani; J Kotre; A Dowling; M Toivonen; S Kottou; V Tsapaki; S Willis; G Bernardi; K Faulkner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Normand Robert; Kristina N Watt; Sophie Rochette; Lionel Desponds; Régis Vaillant; John A Rowlands Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael David Kraus; Gert Krischak; Peter Keppler; Florian T Gebhard; Uwe H W Schuetz Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: J Greffier; C Etard; O Mares; F Pereira; D Defez; C Duverger; P Branchereau; J P Beregi; R Coulomb; A Larbi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yun Mi Hwang; Min Hee Lee; Seon-Jeong Kim; Sheen-Woo Lee; Hye Won Chung; Sang Hoon Lee; Myung Jin Shin Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 3.500