Kevin D Hill1, Steve D Mann2, Michael P Carboni1, Thomas P Doyle3, Salim F Idriss1, Dana F Janssen3, George T Nicholson3, Shyam Sathanandam4, Greg A Fleming1. 1. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Clinical Imaging Physics Group, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics at the Ann and Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in radiation dose and image quality across institutions, fluoroscope vendors and generations of fluoroscopes for pediatric cardiac catheterization. BACKGROUND: Increased recognition of the potentially harmful effects of ionizing radiation has spurred technological advances in fluoroscopes, as well as increased focus on optimizing fluoroscope performance. There is currently little understanding of variability in the dose-image quality relationship across institutions, fluoroscope vendor and/or generation of equipment. METHODS: We evaluated latest generation fluoroscopes from Phillips, Siemens, GE, and Toshiba, and an older generation Phillips fluoroscope (release date 2003) at three different institutions. Radiation dose was measured using an anthropomorphic dose-assessment phantom with effective dose in mSv estimated from Monte Carlo simulations. Image quality phantom images were scored on a 12-point scale by three blinded reviewers. RESULTS: Fluoroscope effective doses ranged from 0.04 to 0.14 mSv/1,000 pulses for fluoroscopy with associated composite image quality scores ranging from 8.0 ± 0.6 to 10.4 ± 1.3. For cineangiography, effective doses ranged from 0.17 to 0.57 mSv/1,000 frames with image quality scores ranging from 10.1 ± 0.3 to 11.1 ± 0.3. There was modest correlation between effective dose and image quality (r = 0.67, P = 0.006). The older generation fluoroscope delivered consistently higher doses than the newer generation systems (2.3- to 3.5-fold higher for fluoroscopy; 1.1- to 3.4-fold higher for cineangiography) without appreciable differences in image quality. CONCLUSION: Technological advances have markedly improved fluoroscope performance. Comparing latest generation systems across vendors and institutions, we found variability in the dose-IQ relationship and speculate that this reflects both equipment and institutional optimization practices.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in radiation dose and image quality across institutions, fluoroscope vendors and generations of fluoroscopes for pediatric cardiac catheterization. BACKGROUND: Increased recognition of the potentially harmful effects of ionizing radiation has spurred technological advances in fluoroscopes, as well as increased focus on optimizing fluoroscope performance. There is currently little understanding of variability in the dose-image quality relationship across institutions, fluoroscope vendor and/or generation of equipment. METHODS: We evaluated latest generation fluoroscopes from Phillips, Siemens, GE, and Toshiba, and an older generation Phillips fluoroscope (release date 2003) at three different institutions. Radiation dose was measured using an anthropomorphic dose-assessment phantom with effective dose in mSv estimated from Monte Carlo simulations. Image quality phantom images were scored on a 12-point scale by three blinded reviewers. RESULTS: Fluoroscope effective doses ranged from 0.04 to 0.14 mSv/1,000 pulses for fluoroscopy with associated composite image quality scores ranging from 8.0 ± 0.6 to 10.4 ± 1.3. For cineangiography, effective doses ranged from 0.17 to 0.57 mSv/1,000 frames with image quality scores ranging from 10.1 ± 0.3 to 11.1 ± 0.3. There was modest correlation between effective dose and image quality (r = 0.67, P = 0.006). The older generation fluoroscope delivered consistently higher doses than the newer generation systems (2.3- to 3.5-fold higher for fluoroscopy; 1.1- to 3.4-fold higher for cineangiography) without appreciable differences in image quality. CONCLUSION: Technological advances have markedly improved fluoroscope performance. Comparing latest generation systems across vendors and institutions, we found variability in the dose-IQ relationship and speculate that this reflects both equipment and institutional optimization practices.
Authors: Thomas M Bashore; Stephen Balter; Ana Barac; John G Byrne; Jeffrey J Cavendish; Charles E Chambers; James Bernard Hermiller; Scott Kinlay; Joel S Landzberg; Warren K Laskey; Charles R McKay; Julie M Miller; David J Moliterno; John W M Moore; Sandra M Oliver-McNeil; Jeffrey J Popma; Carl L Tommaso Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew C Glatz; Kristen S Purrington; Amanda Klinger; Amanda R King; Jeffrey Hellinger; Xiaowei Zhu; Stephen B Gruber; Peter J Gruber Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Jason N Johnson; Christoph P Hornik; Jennifer S Li; Daniel K Benjamin; Terry T Yoshizumi; Robert E Reiman; Donald P Frush; Kevin D Hill Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Daniel S Berman; James K Min; Robert C Hendel; Thomas C Gerber; J Jeffrey Carr; Manuel D Cerqueira; S James Cullom; Robert DeKemp; Neal W Dickert; Sharmila Dorbala; Reza Fazel; Ernest V Garcia; Raymond J Gibbons; Sandra S Halliburton; Jörg Hausleiter; Gary V Heller; Scott Jerome; John R Lesser; Gilbert L Raff; Peter Tilkemeier; Kim A Williams; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kevin D Hill; Chu Wang; Andrew J Einstein; Natalie Januzis; Giao Nguyen; Jennifer S Li; Gregory A Fleming; Terry K Yoshizumi Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
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