OBJECTIVES: To propose national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for interventional radiology and to evaluate the impact of the procedural complexity on patient doses. METHODS: Eight interventional radiology units from Spanish hospitals were involved in this project. The participants agreed to undergo common quality control procedures for X-ray systems. Kerma area product (KAP) was collected from a sample of 1,649 procedures. A consensus document established the criteria to evaluate the complexity of seven types of procedures. DRLs were set as the 3rd quartile of KAP values. RESULTS: The KAP (3rd quartile) in Gy cm2 for the procedures included in the survey were: lower extremity arteriography (n = 784) 78; renal arteriography (n = 37) 107; transjugular hepatic biopsies (THB) (n = 30) 45; biliary drainage (BD) (n = 314) 30; uterine fibroid embolization (UFE) (n = 56) 214; colon endoprostheses (CE) (n = 31) 169; hepatic chemoembolization (HC) (n = 269) 303; femoropopliteal revascularization (FR) (n = 62) 119; and iliac stent (n = 66) 170. The complexity involved the increases in the following KAP factors from simple to complex procedures: THB x4; BD x13; UFE x3; CE x3; HC x5; FR x5 and IS x4. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the procedure complexity in patient doses will allow the proper use of DRLs for the optimization of interventional radiology. KEY POINTS: • National DRLs for interventional procedures have been proposed given level of complexity • For clinical audits, the level of complexity should be taken into account. • An evaluation of the complexity levels of the procedure should be made.
OBJECTIVES: To propose national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for interventional radiology and to evaluate the impact of the procedural complexity on patient doses. METHODS: Eight interventional radiology units from Spanish hospitals were involved in this project. The participants agreed to undergo common quality control procedures for X-ray systems. Kerma area product (KAP) was collected from a sample of 1,649 procedures. A consensus document established the criteria to evaluate the complexity of seven types of procedures. DRLs were set as the 3rd quartile of KAP values. RESULTS: The KAP (3rd quartile) in Gy cm2 for the procedures included in the survey were: lower extremity arteriography (n = 784) 78; renal arteriography (n = 37) 107; transjugular hepatic biopsies (THB) (n = 30) 45; biliary drainage (BD) (n = 314) 30; uterine fibroid embolization (UFE) (n = 56) 214; colon endoprostheses (CE) (n = 31) 169; hepatic chemoembolization (HC) (n = 269) 303; femoropopliteal revascularization (FR) (n = 62) 119; and iliac stent (n = 66) 170. The complexity involved the increases in the following KAP factors from simple to complex procedures: THB x4; BD x13; UFE x3; CE x3; HC x5; FR x5 and IS x4. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the procedure complexity in patient doses will allow the proper use of DRLs for the optimization of interventional radiology. KEY POINTS: • National DRLs for interventional procedures have been proposed given level of complexity • For clinical audits, the level of complexity should be taken into account. • An evaluation of the complexity levels of the procedure should be made.
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
Authors: Roman Kloeckner; Anton Bersch; Daniel Pinto dos Santos; Jens Schneider; Christoph Düber; Michael Bernhard Pitton Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: R Ruiz-Cruces; M Pérez-Martínez; A Martín-Palanca; A Flores; J Cristófol; M Martínez-Morillo; A Díez de los Ríos Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 11.105
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: E Tuthill; L O'Hora; M O'Donohoe; S Panci; P Gilligan; D Campion; R Trenti; E Fox; D Catania; L Rainford Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel Schmitz; Thomas Vogl; Nour-Eldin Abdelrehim Nour-Eldin; Boris Radeleff; Jens-Christian Kröger; Andreas H Mahnken; Harald Ittrich; Hans-Björn Gehl; Bernd Plessow; Joachim Böttcher; Josef Tacke; Markus Wispler; Ulrich Rosien; Wolfgang Schorr; Markus Joerdens; Nicolas Glaser; Erik-Sebastian Fuchs; Andrea Tal; Bettina Friesenhahn-Ochs; Thomas Leimbach; Lars Höpner; Marko Weber; Stefan Gölder; Michael Böhmig; Svetlana Hetjens; Jochen Rudi; Alexander Schegerer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Xinhua Li; Joshua Adam Hirsch; Madan M Rehani; Kai Yang; Theodore Alan Marschall; Bob Liu Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: A Obesso; L Alejo; C Huerga; F Sánchez-Muñoz; E Corredoira; A Fernández-Prieto; R Frutos; B Marín; G Garzón; J Peralta; C Ubeda; E Guibelalde Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Reinhard W Loose; Eliseo Vano; Peter Mildenberger; Virginia Tsapaki; Davide Caramella; Johan Sjöberg; Graciano Paulo; Alberto Torresin; Sebastian Schindera; Guy Frija; John Damilakis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 5.315