Kevin D Hill1, Chu Wang1, Andrew J Einstein1, Natalie Januzis1, Giao Nguyen1, Jennifer S Li1, Gregory A Fleming1, Terry K Yoshizumi1. 1. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics (K.D.H., J.S.L, G.A.F.) and the Department of Radiology (C.W., T.Y., N.J., G.N.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute (K.D.H., J.S.L.), Durham, North Carolina and the Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, and Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York NY (A.J.E.).
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the impact of image optimization on absorbed radiation dose and associated risk in children undergoing cardiac catheterization. BACKGROUND: Various imaging and fluoroscopy system technical parameters including camera magnification, source-to-image distance, collimation, antiscatter grids, beam quality, and pulse rates, all affect radiation dose but have not been well studied in younger children. METHODS: We used anthropomorphic phantoms (ages: newborn and 5 years old) to measure surface radiation exposure from various imaging approaches and estimated absorbed organ doses and effective doses (ED) using Monte Carlo simulations. Models developed in the National Academies' Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report were used to compare an imaging protocol optimized for dose reduction versus suboptimal imaging (+20 cm source-to-image-distance, +1 magnification setting, no collimation) on lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer. RESULTS: For the newborn and 5-year-old phantoms, respectively ED changes were as follows: +157% and +232% for an increase from 6-inch to 10-inch camera magnification; +61% and +59% for a 20 cm increase in source-to-image-distance; -42% and -48% with addition of 1-inch periphery collimation; -31% and -46% with removal of the antiscatter grid. Compared with an optimized protocol, suboptimal imaging increased ED by 2.75-fold (newborn) and fourfold (5 years old). Estimated cancer LAR from 30-min of posteroanterior fluoroscopy using optimized versus suboptimal imaging, respectively was 0.42% versus 1.23% (newborn female), 0.20% versus 0.53% (newborn male), 0.47% versus 1.70% (5-year-old female) and 0.16% versus 0.69% (5-year-old male). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation-related risks to children undergoing cardiac catheterization can be substantial but are markedly reduced with an optimized imaging approach.
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the impact of image optimization on absorbed radiation dose and associated risk in children undergoing cardiac catheterization. BACKGROUND: Various imaging and fluoroscopy system technical parameters including camera magnification, source-to-image distance, collimation, antiscatter grids, beam quality, and pulse rates, all affect radiation dose but have not been well studied in younger children. METHODS: We used anthropomorphic phantoms (ages: newborn and 5 years old) to measure surface radiation exposure from various imaging approaches and estimated absorbed organ doses and effective doses (ED) using Monte Carlo simulations. Models developed in the National Academies' Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report were used to compare an imaging protocol optimized for dose reduction versus suboptimal imaging (+20 cm source-to-image-distance, +1 magnification setting, no collimation) on lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer. RESULTS: For the newborn and 5-year-old phantoms, respectively ED changes were as follows: +157% and +232% for an increase from 6-inch to 10-inch camera magnification; +61% and +59% for a 20 cm increase in source-to-image-distance; -42% and -48% with addition of 1-inch periphery collimation; -31% and -46% with removal of the antiscatter grid. Compared with an optimized protocol, suboptimal imaging increased ED by 2.75-fold (newborn) and fourfold (5 years old). Estimated cancer LAR from 30-min of posteroanterior fluoroscopy using optimized versus suboptimal imaging, respectively was 0.42% versus 1.23% (newborn female), 0.20% versus 0.53% (newborn male), 0.47% versus 1.70% (5-year-old female) and 0.16% versus 0.69% (5-year-old male). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation-related risks to children undergoing cardiac catheterization can be substantial but are markedly reduced with an optimized imaging approach.
Authors: Michael S Stecker; Stephen Balter; Richard B Towbin; Donald L Miller; Eliseo Vañó; Gabriel Bartal; J Fritz Angle; Christine P Chao; Alan M Cohen; Robert G Dixon; Kathleen Gross; George G Hartnell; Beth Schueler; John D Statler; Thierry de Baère; John F Cardella Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Charles E Chambers; Kenneth A Fetterly; Ralf Holzer; Pei-Jan Paul Lin; James C Blankenship; Stephen Balter; Warren K Laskey Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
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: Reid C Chamberlain; Alexis C Shindhelm; Chu Wang; Gregory A Fleming; Kevin D Hill Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 1.093
Authors: Kevin D Hill; Donald P Frush; B Kelly Han; Brian G Abbott; Aimee K Armstrong; Robert A DeKemp; Andrew C Glatz; S Bruce Greenberg; Alexander Sheldon Herbert; Henri Justino; Douglas Mah; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Cynthia K Rigsby; Timothy C Slesnick; Keith J Strauss; Sigal Trattner; Mohan N Viswanathan; Andrew J Einstein Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-05-18
Authors: Luke J Lamers; Brian H Morray; Alan Nugent; Michael Speidel; Petch Suntharos; Lourdes Prieto Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 2.279