Hyeyeun Lim1, Martha S Linet1, Miriam E Van Dyke2, Donald L Miller3, Steven L Simon1, Alice J Sigurdson1, Cari M Kitahara1. 1. 1 Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9069 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, MD 20850. 2. 2 Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 3. 3 Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Information is limited on changes over time in the types of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and associated radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study included 12,571 U.S. radiologic technologists who were certified for at least 2 years in 1926-1982 and who reported in a 2012-2013 survey that they ever performed or assisted with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. They completed a mailed questionnaire in 2013-2014 describing their detailed work practices for 21 fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures and associated radiation safety practices from the 1950s through 2009. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of technologists who reported working with therapeutic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including percutaneous coronary interventions, increased over time, whereas the proportion of technologists who worked with diagnostic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including diagnostic cardiovascular catheterization and neuroangiographic procedures, decreased. We also observed substantial increases in the median number of times per month that technologists worked with diagnostic cardiovascular catheterizations and percutaneous coronary interventions. In each time period, most technologists reported consistently (≥ 75% of work time) wearing radiation monitoring badges and lead aprons during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. However, fewer than 50% of the technologists reported consistent use of thyroid shields, lead glasses, and room shields during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, even in more recent time periods. CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed historical assessment of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists from the 1950s through 2009. Results can be used in conjunction with badge dose data to estimate organ radiation dose for studies of radiation-related health risks in radiologic technologists who have worked with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures.
OBJECTIVE: Information is limited on changes over time in the types of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and associated radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study included 12,571 U.S. radiologic technologists who were certified for at least 2 years in 1926-1982 and who reported in a 2012-2013 survey that they ever performed or assisted with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. They completed a mailed questionnaire in 2013-2014 describing their detailed work practices for 21 fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures and associated radiation safety practices from the 1950s through 2009. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of technologists who reported working with therapeutic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including percutaneous coronary interventions, increased over time, whereas the proportion of technologists who worked with diagnostic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including diagnostic cardiovascular catheterization and neuroangiographic procedures, decreased. We also observed substantial increases in the median number of times per month that technologists worked with diagnostic cardiovascular catheterizations and percutaneous coronary interventions. In each time period, most technologists reported consistently (≥ 75% of work time) wearing radiation monitoring badges and lead aprons during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. However, fewer than 50% of the technologists reported consistent use of thyroid shields, lead glasses, and room shields during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, even in more recent time periods. CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed historical assessment of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists from the 1950s through 2009. Results can be used in conjunction with badge dose data to estimate organ radiation dose for studies of radiation-related health risks in radiologic technologists who have worked with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures.
Authors: Kwang Pyo Kim; Donald L Miller; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Stephen Balter; Ruth A Kleinerman; Evgenia Ostroumova; Steven L Simon; Martha S Linet Journal: Health Phys Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Preetha Rajaraman; Michele M Doody; Chu Ling Yu; Dale L Preston; Jeremy S Miller; Alice J Sigurdson; D Michal Freedman; Bruce H Alexander; Mark P Little; Donald L Miller; Martha S Linet Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Alice J Sigurdson; Michele Morin Doody; R Sowmya Rao; D Michal Freedman; Bruce H Alexander; Michael Hauptmann; Aparna K Mohan; Shinji Yoshinaga; Deirdre A Hill; Robert Tarone; Kiyohiko Mabuchi; Elaine Ron; Martha S Linet Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Martha S Linet; Michael Hauptmann; D Michal Freedman; Bruce H Alexander; Jeremy Miller; Alice J Sigurdson; Michele Morin Doody Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2006-09