K van der Marel1, S Vedantham1, I M J van der Bom2, M Howk1, T Narain1, K Ty1, A Karellas1, M J Gounis3, A S Puri1, A K Wakhloo1. 1. From the Department of Radiology (K.v.d.M., S.V., M.H., T.N., K.T., A.K., M.J.G., A.S.P., A.K.W.), New England Center for Stroke Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. 2. Philips Healthcare (I.M.J.v.d.B.), Best, the Netherlands. 3. From the Department of Radiology (K.v.d.M., S.V., M.H., T.N., K.T., A.K., M.J.G., A.S.P., A.K.W.), New England Center for Stroke Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts Matthew.Gounis@umassmed.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advancements in medical device and imaging technology as well as accruing clinical evidence have accelerated the growth of the endovascular treatment of cerebrovascular diseases. However, the augmented role of these procedures raises concerns about the radiation dose to patients and operators. We evaluated patient doses from an x-ray imaging platform with radiation dose-reduction technology, which combined image noise reduction, motion correction, and contrast-dependent temporal averaging with optimized x-ray exposure settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective study, cumulative dose-area product inclusive of fluoroscopy, angiography, and 3D acquisitions for all neurovascular procedures performed during a 2-year period on the dose-reduction platform were compared with a reference platform. Key study features were the following: The neurointerventional radiologist could select the targeted dose reduction for each patient with the dose-reduction platform, and the statistical analyses included patient characteristics and the neurointerventional radiologist as covariates. The analyzed outcome measures were cumulative dose (kerma)-area product, fluoroscopy duration, and administered contrast volume. RESULTS: A total of 1238 neurointerventional cases were included, of which 914 and 324 were performed on the reference and dose-reduction platforms, respectively. Over all diagnostic and neurointerventional procedures, the cumulative dose-area product was significantly reduced by 53.2% (mean reduction, 160.3 Gy × cm2; P < .0001), fluoroscopy duration was marginally significantly increased (mean increase, 5.2 minutes; P = .0491), and contrast volume was nonsignificantly increased (mean increase, 15.3 mL; P = .1616) with the dose-reduction platform. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in patient radiation dose is achievable during neurovascular procedures by using dose-reduction technology with a minimal impact on workflow.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advancements in medical device and imaging technology as well as accruing clinical evidence have accelerated the growth of the endovascular treatment of cerebrovascular diseases. However, the augmented role of these procedures raises concerns about the radiation dose to patients and operators. We evaluated patient doses from an x-ray imaging platform with radiation dose-reduction technology, which combined image noise reduction, motion correction, and contrast-dependent temporal averaging with optimized x-ray exposure settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective study, cumulative dose-area product inclusive of fluoroscopy, angiography, and 3D acquisitions for all neurovascular procedures performed during a 2-year period on the dose-reduction platform were compared with a reference platform. Key study features were the following: The neurointerventional radiologist could select the targeted dose reduction for each patient with the dose-reduction platform, and the statistical analyses included patient characteristics and the neurointerventional radiologist as covariates. The analyzed outcome measures were cumulative dose (kerma)-area product, fluoroscopy duration, and administered contrast volume. RESULTS: A total of 1238 neurointerventional cases were included, of which 914 and 324 were performed on the reference and dose-reduction platforms, respectively. Over all diagnostic and neurointerventional procedures, the cumulative dose-area product was significantly reduced by 53.2% (mean reduction, 160.3 Gy × cm2; P < .0001), fluoroscopy duration was marginally significantly increased (mean increase, 5.2 minutes; P = .0491), and contrast volume was nonsignificantly increased (mean increase, 15.3 mL; P = .1616) with the dose-reduction platform. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in patient radiation dose is achievable during neurovascular procedures by using dose-reduction technology with a minimal impact on workflow.
Authors: R F F van den Haak; B C Hamans; K Zuurmond; B A N Verhoeven; O H J Koning Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Gregory J Velat; John F Reavey-Cantwell; Christopher Sistrom; David Smullen; Gregory L Fautheree; Jobyna Whiting; Stephen B Lewis; Robert A Mericle; Christopher S Firment; Brian L Hoh Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: E Vano; J M Fernandez; R M Sanchez; D Martinez; L Lopez Ibor; A Gil; C Serna-Candel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Richard S C Kerr; Ly-Mee Yu; Mike Clarke; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Peter Sandercock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 3-9 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nikolaus A Haas; Christoph M Happel; Maria Mauti; Cherif Sahyoun; Lea Z Tebart; Deniz Kececioglu; Kai Thorsten Laser Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2015-01-20
Authors: Robert Forbrig; Robert Stahl; Lucas L Geyer; Yigit Ozpeynirci; Thomas Liebig; Christoph G Trumm Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Marcel Opitz; Sebastian Zensen; Denise Bos; Yan Li; Hanna Styczen; Axel Wetter; Nika Guberina; Ramazan Jabbarli; Ulrich Sure; Michael Forsting; Isabel Wanke; Cornelius Deuschl Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 2.804