Adrien Guenego1, Pascal J Mosimann2, Vitor Mendes Pereira3, Patrick Nicholson3, Kevin Zuber4, Jean Albert Lotterie5, Tomas Dobrocky2, David G Marcellus6, Jean Marc Olivot7, Michel Piotin8, Jan Gralla2, Robert Fahed8, Max Wintermark6, Jeremy J Heit6, Christophe Cognard9. 1. Interventional Neuroradiology Department, Hôpital Pierre-Paul Riquet, Toulouse University Hospital, Place du Dr Baylac, TSA 40 031, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. adrienguenego@gmail.com. 2. Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 4. Clinical Research Unit, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France. 5. Stereotaxic Neurosurgery Department, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. 6. Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology, Stanford Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 7. Vascular Neurology, Stroke Department, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. 8. Interventional Neuroradiology, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France. 9. Interventional Neuroradiology Department, Hôpital Pierre-Paul Riquet, Toulouse University Hospital, Place du Dr Baylac, TSA 40 031, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International dose reference levels are lacking for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusions. We studied whether radiation dose-reduction systems (RDS) could effectively reduce exposure and propose achievable levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included consecutive patients treated with thrombectomy on a biplane angiography system (BP) in five international, high-volume centers between January 2014 and May 2017. Institutional Review Board approvals were obtained. Technical, procedural, and clinical characteristics were assessed. Efficacy, safety, radiation dose, and contrast load were compared between angiography systems with and without RDS. Multivariate analyses were adjusted according to Bonferroni's correction. Proposed international achievable cutoff levels were set at the 75th percentile. RESULTS: Out of the 1096 thrombectomized patients, 520 (47%) were treated on a BP equipped with RDS. After multivariate analysis, RDS significantly reduced dose-area product (DAP) (91 vs 140 Gy cm2, relative effect 0.74 (CI 0.66; 0.83), 35% decrease, p < 0.001) and air kerma (0.46 vs 0.97 Gy, relative effect 0.63 (CI 0.56; 0.71), 53% decrease, p < 0.001) with 75th percentile levels of 148 Gy cm2 and 0.73 Gy, respectively. There was no difference in contrast load, rates of successful recanalization, complications, or clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Radiation dose-reduction systems can reduce DAP and air kerma by a third and a half, respectively, without affecting thrombectomy efficacy or safety. The respective thresholds of 148 Gy cm2 and 0.73 Gy represent achievable levels that may serve to optimize current and future radiation exposure in the setting of acute ischemic stroke treatment. As technology evolves, we expect these values to decrease. KEY POINTS: • Internationally validated achievable levels may help caregivers and health authorities better assess and reduce radiation exposure of both ischemic stroke patients and treating staff during thrombectomy procedures. • Radiation dose-reduction systems can reduce DAP and air kerma by a third and a half, respectively, without affecting thrombectomy efficacy or safety in the setting of acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion.
BACKGROUND: International dose reference levels are lacking for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic strokepatients with large vessel occlusions. We studied whether radiation dose-reduction systems (RDS) could effectively reduce exposure and propose achievable levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included consecutive patients treated with thrombectomy on a biplane angiography system (BP) in five international, high-volume centers between January 2014 and May 2017. Institutional Review Board approvals were obtained. Technical, procedural, and clinical characteristics were assessed. Efficacy, safety, radiation dose, and contrast load were compared between angiography systems with and without RDS. Multivariate analyses were adjusted according to Bonferroni's correction. Proposed international achievable cutoff levels were set at the 75th percentile. RESULTS: Out of the 1096 thrombectomized patients, 520 (47%) were treated on a BP equipped with RDS. After multivariate analysis, RDS significantly reduced dose-area product (DAP) (91 vs 140 Gy cm2, relative effect 0.74 (CI 0.66; 0.83), 35% decrease, p < 0.001) and air kerma (0.46 vs 0.97 Gy, relative effect 0.63 (CI 0.56; 0.71), 53% decrease, p < 0.001) with 75th percentile levels of 148 Gy cm2 and 0.73 Gy, respectively. There was no difference in contrast load, rates of successful recanalization, complications, or clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Radiation dose-reduction systems can reduce DAP and air kerma by a third and a half, respectively, without affecting thrombectomy efficacy or safety. The respective thresholds of 148 Gy cm2 and 0.73 Gy represent achievable levels that may serve to optimize current and future radiation exposure in the setting of acute ischemic stroke treatment. As technology evolves, we expect these values to decrease. KEY POINTS: • Internationally validated achievable levels may help caregivers and health authorities better assess and reduce radiation exposure of both ischemic strokepatients and treating staff during thrombectomy procedures. • Radiation dose-reduction systems can reduce DAP and air kerma by a third and a half, respectively, without affecting thrombectomy efficacy or safety in the setting of acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion.
Authors: S Balter; D L Miller; E Vano; P Ortiz Lopez; G Bernardi; E Cotelo; K Faulkner; R Nowotny; R Padovani; A Ramirez Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Christopher D d'Esterre; Emmad M Qazi; Mohammed Almekhlafi; Leszek Hahn; Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Christophe Cognard; Mauro Gallitelli; Olav Jansen; Adam Kobayashi; Heinrich P Mattle; Keith W Muir; Mikael Mazighi; Karl Schaller; Peter D Schellinger Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: E Vañó; D L Miller; C J Martin; M M Rehani; K Kang; M Rosenstein; P Ortiz-López; S Mattsson; R Padovani; A Rogers Journal: Ann ICRP Date: 2017-10
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gerasimos A T Messaris; Dimitrios N Georgakopoulos; Petros Zampakis; Christina P Kalogeropoulou; Theodoros G Petsas; George S Panayiotakis Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 3.447
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: Michael Söderman; Maria Mauti; Sjirk Boon; Artur Omar; María Marteinsdóttir; Tommy Andersson; Staffan Holmin; Bart Hoornaert Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Charlotte S Weyland; Felix Hemmerich; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Martin Bendszus; Johannes A R Pfaff Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charlotte S Weyland; Fatih Seker; Arne Potreck; Christian Hametner; Peter A Ringleb; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Martin Bendszus; Johannes A R Pfaff Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hannes Deutschmann; Nicole Hinteregger; Ulrike Wießpeiner; Markus Kneihsl; Simon Fandler-Höfler; Manuela Michenthaler; Christian Enzinger; Eva Hassler; Stefan Leber; Gernot Reishofer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charlotte S Weyland; Arne Potreck; Ulf Neuberger; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Simon Nagel; Peter A Ringleb; Martin Bendszus; Johannes A R Pfaff Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 2.804
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