James A Crowhurst1,2,3, Mark Whitby2,4, Nicholas Aroney1,2, Rustem Dautov1,2, Darren Walters1,2,5, Owen Raffel1,2. 1. The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Queensland, Australia. 2. University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 4. I-MED Radiology, Newstead, Queensland, Australia. 5. St Vincents Northside Private Hospital, Chermside, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Radiation from cardiac angiography procedures is harmful to patients and the staff performing them. This study sought to investigate operator radiation dose for a range of procedures and different operators in order to investigate trends and optimise dose. METHODS: Real-time dosemeters (RTDs) were worn by operators for angiography procedures for 3 years. Dose-area product (DAP) and RTD were collected. RTD was normalised to DAP (RTD/DAP) to compare radiation dose and radiation protection measures. Comparisons were made across procedure categories and individual operators. RESULTS: In 7626 procedures, median and 75th percentile levels were established for operator dose for 8 procedure categories. There was a significant difference in all operator dose measures and DAP across procedure categories (p<0.001). DAP, RTD, and RTD/DAP were significantly different across 22 individual operators (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: DAP was significantly different across procedure categories and a higher RTD was seen with higher DAP. RTD/DAP can demonstrate radiation protection effectiveness and identified differences between procedures and individual operators with this measure. Procedures and individuals were identified where further optimisation of radiation protection measures may be beneficial. A reference level for operator dose can be created and audited against on a regular basis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that operator dose can be easily and routinely measured on a case by case basis to investigate dose trends for different procedures. Normalising the operator dose to DAP demonstrates radiation protection effectiveness for the individual operator which can then be optimised as part of an ongoing audit program.
OBJECTIVES: Radiation from cardiac angiography procedures is harmful to patients and the staff performing them. This study sought to investigate operator radiation dose for a range of procedures and different operators in order to investigate trends and optimise dose. METHODS: Real-time dosemeters (RTDs) were worn by operators for angiography procedures for 3 years. Dose-area product (DAP) and RTD were collected. RTD was normalised to DAP (RTD/DAP) to compare radiation dose and radiation protection measures. Comparisons were made across procedure categories and individual operators. RESULTS: In 7626 procedures, median and 75th percentile levels were established for operator dose for 8 procedure categories. There was a significant difference in all operator dose measures and DAP across procedure categories (p<0.001). DAP, RTD, and RTD/DAP were significantly different across 22 individual operators (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: DAP was significantly different across procedure categories and a higher RTD was seen with higher DAP. RTD/DAP can demonstrate radiation protection effectiveness and identified differences between procedures and individual operators with this measure. Procedures and individuals were identified where further optimisation of radiation protection measures may be beneficial. A reference level for operator dose can be created and audited against on a regular basis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that operator dose can be easily and routinely measured on a case by case basis to investigate dose trends for different procedures. Normalising the operator dose to DAP demonstrates radiation protection effectiveness for the individual operator which can then be optimised as part of an ongoing audit program.
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: James A Crowhurst; Gregory M Scalia; Mark Whitby; Dale Murdoch; Brendan J Robinson; Arianwen Turner; Liesie Johnston; Swaroop Margale; Sarvesh Natani; Andrew Clarke; Darryl J Burstow; Owen C Raffel; Darren L Walters Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew H McNeice; Matthew Brooks; Colm G Hanratty; Michael Stevenson; James C Spratt; Simon J Walsh Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: C Cousins; D L Miller; G Bernardi; M M Rehani; P Schofield; E Vañó; A J Einstein; B Geiger; P Heintz; R Padovani; K-H Sim Journal: Ann ICRP Date: 2013-02
Authors: Alessandro Sciahbasi; Enrico Frigoli; Alessandro Sarandrea; Martina Rothenbühler; Paolo Calabrò; Alessandro Lupi; Francesco Tomassini; Bernardo Cortese; Stefano Rigattieri; Enrico Cerrato; Dennis Zavalloni; Antonio Zingarelli; Paolo Calabria; Paolo Rubartelli; Gennaro Sardella; Matteo Tebaldi; Stephan Windecker; Peter Jüni; Dik Heg; Marco Valgimigli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 24.094
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
Authors: Kwang Pyo Kim; Donald L Miller; Stephen Balter; Ruth A Kleinerman; Martha S Linet; Deukwoo Kwon; Steven L Simon Journal: Health Phys Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Lloyd W Klein; James A Goldstein; David Haines; Charles Chambers; Roxana Mehran; Smadar Kort; C Michael Valentine; David Cox Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 24.094