Radial artery access as a predictor of increased radiation exposure during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure.

OBJECTIVES We sought to determine whether radial artery access is associated with increased radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization and whether this relationship differs between operators, after adjustment for clinical and patient characteristics associated with greater radiation exposure. BACKGROUND Although previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between radial access and increased radiation exposure to the patient during fluoroscopy-guided cardiac procedures, such studies did not account for differences in operator technique or clustering of patients, procedure complexity, or patient size. Those studies included data from few operators. METHODS Data were collected prospectively on 5,954 diagnostic cardiac catheterizations performed at a tertiary cardiac center. A multilevel regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between radial artery access and radiation exposure. RESULTS After adjustment for multiple factors, radial access was associated with increased exposure (beta = 0.22, p < 0.0001) when compared with the use of femoral access, as measured using the logarithmically transformed air kerma (LogAK). On average, radial access accounted for a 23% increase in measured AK. This was consistent between operators. There were observed differences in the mean LogAK between operators (p = 0.0158), as well as substantial variation in measured LogAK between patients within each operator's practice (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Radial artery access cardiac catheterization was associated with increased radiation exposure to the patient when compared with femoral access. The measured AK was still far below the threshold for deterministic effects in most patients studied. Observed variations in AK between and within operators may point to better opportunities to reduce exposure.

[1]  C. Xie,et al.  Predictors of increased radiation dose during percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The American journal of cardiology.

[2]  Stephen Balter,et al.  ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  A. Dibié,et al.  Factors influencing fluoroscopy time and dose-area product values during ad hoc one-vessel percutaneous coronary angioplasty. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Donald L. Miller,et al.  Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: Time for a safer environment , 2009, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[5]  Cheryl Anne Smith Implementing a nursing internship program. , 2008, Healthcare quarterly.

[6]  H. Lange,et al.  Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[7]  E. Kuon Radiation exposure in invasive cardiology , 2008, Heart.

[8]  K. Faulkner,et al.  Patient dose values in a dedicated Greek cardiac centre. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  Salim Yusuf,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2009, American heart journal.

[10]  A. Gafni,et al.  Insight into capacity planning for cardiac catheterization services: Policy lessons learned from “Looking in the Mirror” over a decade , 2009, Health Policy.

[11]  Stephen Balter,et al.  ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task , 2005, Circulation.

[12]  B. Strauss,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction--the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial. , 2005, American heart journal.

[13]  D. Metz,et al.  Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes. , 2008, European heart journal.

[14]  M. Sandborg,et al.  Evaluation of patient-absorbed doses during coronary angiography and intervention by femoral and radial artery access , 2004, European Radiology.

[15]  D. Patel,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for rescue percutaneous coronary intervention with adjuvant glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use. , 2004, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[16]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Is patient size important in dose determination and optimization in cardiology? , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  J. Moses,et al.  Managing patient dose in interventional cardiology , 2007, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[18]  T. Sheth,et al.  Radiation dose in interventional cardiology procedures: urgent need for monitoring dose and establishing diagnostic reference levels. , 2008, Healthcare quarterly.