Literature DB >> 31769743

Occupational Doses to Medical Staff Performing or Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.

David Borrego1, Cari M Kitahara1, Stephen Balter1, Craig Yoder1.   

Abstract

Background Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-exposed groups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff performing or assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retrospectively collected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corresponding to years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (P = .96) or those who wore two badges (P = .23). Annual lens dose equivalents for workers wearing one badge (median, 6.9 mSv; interquartile range, 3.8213.8 mSv; n = 6218) were similar to those of staff wearing two badges (median, 7.1 mSv; interquartile range, 4.6-11.2 mSv; n = 1449) (P = .18), suggesting a similar radiation environment. Conclusion These workers are among the highest exposed to elevated levels of ionizing radiation, although their occupational doses are within U.S. regulatory limits. This is a population that requires consistent and accurate dose monitoring; however, failure to return one or both badges, reversal of badges, and improper badge placement are a major hindrance to this goal. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Karellas in this issue.

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31769743      PMCID: PMC6996708          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  21 in total

1.  Occupational radiation exposure to interventional radiologists: a prospective study.

Authors:  M V Marx; L Niklason; E A Mauger
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 3.464

2.  Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007.

Authors:  Fred A Mettler; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Keith Faulkner; Debbie B Gilley; Joel E Gray; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Jill A Lipoti; Mahadevappa Mahesh; John L McCrohan; Michael G Stabin; Bruce R Thomadsen; Terry T Yoshizumi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Staff doses in interventional radiology: a national survey.

Authors:  Roberto Mariano Sánchez; Eliseo Vano; Jose M Fernández; Francisco Rosales; Jesús Sotil; Francisco Carrera; María A García; María M Soler; José Hernández-Armas; Luis C Martínez; José F Verdú
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 3.464

4.  Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Raquel Velazquez-Kronen; David Borrego; Ethel S Gilbert; Donald L Miller; Kirsten B Moysich; Jo L Freudenheim; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Elizabeth K Cahoon; Mark P Little; Amy E Millen; Stephen Balter; Bruce H Alexander; Steven L Simon; Martha S Linet; Cari M Kitahara
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 5.  The International Atomic Energy Agency action plan on radiation protection of patients and staff in interventional procedures: Achieving change in practice.

Authors:  V Tsapaki; S Balter; C Cousins; O Holmberg; D L Miller; P Miranda; M Rehani; E Vano
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 2.685

Review 6.  A REVIEW OF TWO METHODS USED IN THE USA TO ASSESS HE DURING FLUOROSCOPIC-BASED RADIOLOGY.

Authors:  R Craig Yoder; Mark R Salasky
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  EDE for exposure with protective aprons.

Authors:  E W Webster
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 1.316

8.  Potential occupational exposures in diagnostic and interventional radiology: statistical modeling based on Finnish national dose registry data.

Authors:  Antti Pekkarinen; Teemu Siiskonen; Maaret Lehtinen; Sauli Savolainen; Mika Kortesniemi
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 1.990

9.  Changing Patterns in the Performance of Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures and Adherence to Radiation Safety Practices in a U.S. Cohort of Radiologic Technologists.

Authors:  Hyeyeun Lim; Martha S Linet; Miriam E Van Dyke; Donald L Miller; Steven L Simon; Alice J Sigurdson; Cari M Kitahara
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Occupational Radiation Exposure and Deaths From Malignant Intracranial Neoplasms of the Brain and CNS in U.S. Radiologic Technologists, 1983-2012.

Authors:  Cari M Kitahara; Martha S Linet; Stephen Balter; Donald L Miller; Preetha Rajaraman; Elizabeth K Cahoon; Raquel Velazquez-Kronen; Steven L Simon; Mark P Little; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Dale L Preston
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 6.582

View more
  5 in total

1.  Challenges in Dosimetry and Radiation Dose Trends.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Eye protection in interventional procedures.

Authors:  Beth A Schueler; Kenneth A Fetterly
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.629

3.  Trends in Occupational Radiation Doses for U.S. Radiologic Technologists Performing General Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures, 1980-2015.

Authors:  Daphnée Villoing; David Borrego; Dale L Preston; Bruce H Alexander; André Rose; Mark Salasky; Martha S Linet; Choonsik Lee; Cari M Kitahara
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 29.146

4.  AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 12.a: Fluoroscopy dose management.

Authors:  Ryan F Fisher; Kimberly E Applegate; Lindsey K Berkowitz; Olav Christianson; Jaydev K Dave; Lindsay DeWeese; Nichole Harris; Mary Ellen Jafari; A Kyle Jones; Robert J Kobistek; Brendan Loughran; Loren Marous; Donald L Miller; Beth Schueler; Bryan C Schwarz; Adam Springer; Kevin A Wunderle
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Aegrescit medendo: orthopedic disability in electrophysiology - call for fluoroscopy elimination-review and commentary.

Authors:  Donald S Rubenstein; Benjamin B Holmes; Joseph A Manfredi; Matthew S McKillop; Peter C Netzler; Chad C Ward
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 1.759

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.