Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector.

OBJECTIVE Currently, cardiac interventional radiology equipment has tended toward using flat-panel detectors (FPDs) instead of image intensifiers (IIs) because FPDs offer better imaging performance. However, the radiation dose from an FPD in cardiac interventional radiology is not clear. The purpose of our study was to measure the radiation doses during cineangiography and fluoroscopy of many cardiac radiology systems that use FPDs or IIs, in clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study examined 20 radiology systems in 15 cardiac catheterization laboratories (11 used FPD and nine used II). The entrance surface doses with digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared for the 20 systems using acrylic plates (20-cm thick) and a skin dose monitor. RESULTS For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface doses of the 20-cm-thick acrylic plates were identical for FPD (average +/- SD, 16.63 +/- 7.89 mGy/min; range, 5.7-26.4 mGy/min; maximum/minimum, 4.63) and II (17.81 +/- 12.52 mGy/min; range, 6.5-42.2 mGy/min; maximum/minimum, 6.49) (p = 0.799). For digital cineangiography, the average entrance surface dose of the 20-cm-thick acrylic plate was slightly lower with FPD (29.68 +/- 16.40 mGy/10 s; range, 8.9-58.5 mGy/10 s; maximum/minimum, 6.57) than with II (38.50 +/- 33.71 mGy/10 s; range, 15.2-117.1 mGy/10 s; maximum/minimum, 7.70), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.487). CONCLUSION We found that the average entrance doses of cineangiography and fluoroscopy in FPD systems were not significantly different from those in II systems. Hence, FPDs did not inherently reduce the radiation dose, although FPDs possess good detective quantum efficiency. Therefore, to reduce the radiation dose of cardiac interventional radiology systems, even FPD systems, practical measures are necessary.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  Anchali Krisanachinda,et al.  Patient doses in radiographic examinations in 12 countries in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe: initial results from IAEA projects. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Virginia Tsapaki,et al.  Dose performance evaluation of a charge coupled device and a flat-panel digital fluoroscopy system recently installed in an interventional cardiology laboratory. , 2004, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[5]  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.

[6]  S. Takahashi,et al.  Influence of the target vessel on the location and area of maximum skin dose during percutaneous coronary intervention , 2007, Acta radiologica.

[7]  M. Sivananthan,et al.  Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality , 2007, European Radiology.

[8]  Y. Kagaya,et al.  Indicators of the maximum radiation dose to the skin during percutaneous coronary intervention in different target vessels , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[9]  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.

[10]  M. Kohzuki,et al.  Patient skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures: Conventional fluoroscopy versus pulsed fluoroscopy , 2007, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[11]  E. Vañó,et al.  Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures. , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[12]  D. Holmes,et al.  Flat‐panel detectors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Revolution or evolution—what are the issues? , 2004, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[13]  K. Takeshita,et al.  Radiation dose to patients and radiologists during transcatheter arterial embolization: comparison of a digital flat-panel system and conventional unit. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  S. Balter.  Stray radiation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  S. Takahashi,et al.  Effect of radiation monitoring method and formula differences on estimated physician dose during percutaneous coronary intervention , 2009, Acta radiologica.

[18]  F. Mettler,et al.  Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 1, characteristics of radiation injury. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  R. Morin,et al.  Ionizing Radiation in Cardiac Imaging: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention , 2009, Circulation.