A cross‐sectional study of the radiation dose and image quality of X‐ray equipment used in IVR

There are case reports of injuries caused by the radiation from interventional radiology (IVR) X‐ray systems. Therefore, the management of radiation doses in IVR is important. However, no detailed report has evaluated image quality for a large number of IVR X‐ray systems. As a result, it is unclear whether the image quality of the X‐ray equipment currently used in IVR procedures is optimal. We compared the entrance surface doses and image quality of multiple IVR X‐ray systems. This study was conducted in 2014 at 13 medical facilities using 18 IVR X‐ray systems. We evaluated image quality and simultaneously measured the radiation dose. Entrance surface doses for fluoroscopy (duration, 1 min) and cineradiography (duration, 10 s) are measured using a 20‐cm‐thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The image quality (such as spatial resolution and low‐contrast detectability) of both fluoroscopy and cineradiography was evaluated using a QC phantom. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface dose using the 20‐cm‐thick acrylic plate was 13.9 (range 2.1–28.2) mGy/min. For cineradiography, the average entrance surface dose was 24.6 (range 5.1–49.3) mGy/10 s. We found positive correlations between radiation doses and image quality scores, in general, especially for fluoroscopy. The differences in surface dose among the 18 IVR X‐ray systems were high (max/min, 9.7‐fold for cineradiography; 13.4‐fold for fluoroscopy). The differences in image quality scores (spatial resolution, low‐contrast detectability, and dynamic range) were also very large. In general, there tended to be a correlation between radiation dose and image quality. Periodical measurements of the radiation dose and image quality of the X‐ray equipment used for cineradiography and fluoroscopy in IVR are necessary. The need to minimize patient exposure requires that the dose be reduced to the minimum level that will generate an image with an acceptable degree of noise. PACS number(s): 87.57.C, 87.57.uq, 87.59.B, 87.59.bf, 87.59.C, 87.59.cf, 87.59.Dj

[1]  A. Pasciak,et al.  Calculating the peak skin dose resulting from fluoroscopically guided interventions. Part I: Methods , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[2]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[3]  J. Valentin,et al.  Abstract: Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures, ICRP Publication 85 , 2000 .

[4]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Comparison of the radiation dose in a cardiac IVR X-ray system. , 2011, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[5]  L. Dauer,et al.  Fears, feelings, and facts: interactively communicating benefits and risks of medical radiation with patients. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  T. Ishibashi,et al.  Optimizing patient radiation dose in intervention procedures , 2010, Acta radiologica.

[7]  Zhi-geng Jin,et al.  Dual‐axis rotational coronary angiography can reduce peak skin dose and scattered dose: a phantom study , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[8]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Total entrance skin dose: an effective indicator of maximum radiation dose to the skin during percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Virginia Tsapaki,et al.  Radiation exposure to patients during interventional procedures in 20 countries: initial IAEA project results. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Radiation dose of cardiac IVR x-ray systems: a comparison of present and past , 2015, Acta cardiologica.

[11]  Koichi Chida,et al.  The necessity of follow-up for radiation skin injuries in patients after percutaneous coronary interventions: radiation skin injuries will often be overlooked clinically , 2012, Acta radiologica.

[12]  Yasuo Nakazawa,et al.  Evaluation of image lag in a flat‐panel, detector‐equipped cardiovascular X‐ray machine using a newly developed dynamic phantom , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[13]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Relationship between fluoroscopic time, dose-area product, body weight, and maximum radiation skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Quality Control Phantom for Flat Panel Detector X-ray Systems , 2013, Health physics.

[15]  F. Mettler,et al.  Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 2, review of 73 cases and recommendations for minimizing dose delivered to patient. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Stephen Balter,et al.  Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients' skin and hair. , 2010, Radiology.

[17]  Donald L. Miller,et al.  Patient skin reactions from interventional fluoroscopy procedures. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  B Geiger,et al.  ICRP Publication 120: Radiological Protection in Cardiology , 2013, Annals of the ICRP.

[19]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  A Rotatable Quality Control Phantom for Evaluating the Performance of Flat Panel Detectors in Imaging Moving Objects , 2015, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[20]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Novel Dosimeter Using a Nontoxic Phosphor for Real-Time Monitoring of Patient Radiation Dose in Interventional Radiology. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  R. Morin,et al.  Approaches to enhancing radiation safety in cardiovascular imaging: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. , 2014, Circulation.

[22]  J. Moses,et al.  Radiation is not the only risk. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Radiation dose to the pediatric cardiac catheterization and intervention patient. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Occupational dose in interventional radiology procedures. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Does digital acquisition reduce patients' skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures? An experimental study. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  K. Chida,et al.  Clarifying and visualizing sources of staff-received scattered radiation in interventional procedures. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  Jack Valentin,et al.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[28]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  Masayuki Zuguchi,et al.  Evaluating the performance of a MOSFET dosimeter at diagnostic X-ray energies for interventional radiology , 2009, Radiological physics and technology.