Literature DB >> 28275940

Physician and Patient Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Procedures.

Andrew M Goldsweig1, J Dawn Abbott1, Herbert D Aronow2.   

Abstract

OPINION STATEMENT: Endovascular procedures expose both patients and physicians to fluoroscopic ionizing radiation that carries a dose-dependent risk of acute toxicity and a small, but demonstrable, long-term risk of malignancy due to resultant genetic mutations. Exposure doses vary widely based upon patient-related factors including body size and anatomic complexity, operator technique, procedure type (diagnostic vs. therapeutic), vascular bed imaged, and imaging equipment employed. Effective dosage may vary as much as 200-fold for physicians and 20-fold for patients depending upon the procedure: for example, complex aortic interventions with branched graft devices may convey mean effective doses of more than 0.4 mSv for physicians and 100 mSv for patients, whereas distal, small-vessel angiography may entail mean effective doses of less than 0.002 mSv for physicians and 5 mSv for patients. Particular attention is given to physicians' ocular exposure, which may cause cataract development, and to hand exposure, which is significantly higher than total body exposure when operators work near the x-ray beam. Given the risks of radiation exposure, numerous strategies have been developed to reduce both physician and patient doses. These measures include physician education about dose-reducing imaging techniques, development of low-dose imaging equipment, introduction of new radiation shielding drapes and caps, and real-time dose monitoring. Here, we review physician and patient effective doses of radiation by procedure type as reported in the literature and present recent data regarding dose-reduction strategies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Effective dose; Endovascular intervention; Fluoroscopy; Patient exposure; Physician exposure; Radiation

Year:  2017        PMID: 28275940     DOI: 10.1007/s11936-017-0507-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med        ISSN: 1092-8464


  49 in total

1.  Radiation safety and vascular access: attitudes among cardiologists worldwide.

Authors:  Mladen I Vidovich; Asrar A Khan; Hui Xie; Adhir R Shroff
Journal:  Cardiovasc Revasc Med       Date:  2015-01-29

2.  Feasibility and Safety of Robotic Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Results of the RAPID Trial.

Authors:  Ehtisham Mahmud; Florian Schmid; Peter Kalmar; Hannes Deutschmann; Franz Hafner; Peter Rief; Marianne Brodmann
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 11.195

3.  NCRP report 160 and what it means for medical imaging and nuclear medicine.

Authors:  Norman E Bolus
Journal:  J Nucl Med Technol       Date:  2013-10-31

4.  Radiation-induced skin injury after complex endovascular procedures.

Authors:  Melissa L Kirkwood; Gary M Arbique; Jeffrey B Guild; Carlos Timaran; R James Valentine; Jon A Anderson
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 4.268

Review 5.  ACC expert consensus document. Radiation safety in the practice of cardiology. American College of Cardiology.

Authors:  M C Limacher; P S Douglas; G Germano; W K Laskey; B D Lindsay; M H McKetty; M E Moore; J K Park; F M Prigent; M N Walsh
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1998-03-15       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Efficacy of a radiation absorbing shield in reducing dose to the interventionalist during peripheral endovascular procedures: a single centre pilot study.

Authors:  S Power; M Mirza; A Thakorlal; B Ganai; L D Gavagan; M F Given; M J Lee
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 2.740

7.  New image-processing and noise-reduction software reduces radiation dose during complex endovascular procedures.

Authors:  Melissa L Kirkwood; Jeffrey B Guild; Gary M Arbique; Shirling Tsai; J Gregory Modrall; Jon A Anderson; John Rectenwald; Carlos Timaran
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  Patients' radiation doses during thoracic stent-graft implantation: the problem of long-lasting procedures.

Authors:  Natalia Majewska; Michał-G Stanisić; Magdalena A Kłos; Marcin Makałowski; Maciej Frankiewicz; Robert Juszkat; Wacław Majewski
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 9.  Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

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

10.  Radiation burden of patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Authors:  John A Kalef-Ezra; Stratos Karavasilis; Dimosthenis Ziogas; Dimitris Dristiliaris; Lampros K Michalis; Miltiadis Matsagas
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.268

View more
  3 in total

1.  Steerable sheath visualizable under 3D electroanatomical mapping facilitates paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation with minimal fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Anil Rajendra; Tina D Hunter; Gustavo X Morales; Paul Zei; Lee Ming Boo; Allyson Varley; Jose Osorio
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 1.759

2.  Low-fluoroscopy atrial fibrillation ablation with contact force and ultrasound technologies: a learning curve.

Authors:  Paul C Zei; Tina D Hunter; Larry M Gache; Gerri O'Riordan; Tina Baykaner; Chad R Brodt
Journal:  Pragmat Obs Res       Date:  2019-01-10

3.  The industrialization of ablation: a highly standardized and reproducible workflow for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Tom De Potter; Tina D Hunter; Lee Ming Boo; Sofia Chatzikyriakou; Teresa Strisciuglio; Etel Silva; Peter Geelen
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 1.900

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.