Factors that influence radiation dose in percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIM To explore the factors that may influence the radiation dose imparted to the patient in PCI, and investigate whether the use of the latest digital X-ray system based on FP detector technology can have an impact on dose. MATERIALS AND METHOD Demographic and clinical data such as number of lesions treated, number of stents placed, grade of tortuosity, and stage of occlusion, as well as use of double wire and double balloon technique, ostial stenting or bifurcation stenting, and presence of major complications were recorded, together with radiation parameters. RESULTS The factors that increased patient radiation dose were (1) patient gender, as men exhibited higher doses than women; (2) complex lesion; (3) increasing number of stents; (4) position of stent; (5) grade of tortuosity; and (6) stage of occlusion. The FP digital system appeared to be settled in a lower-dose rate for fluoroscopy (a factor of 6) and higher for dose per frame in cine (a factor of 3) in comparison with the image intensifier (II) system. There was a marked reduction of DAP when the FP technology was introduced. CONCLUSION More extensive studies should be performed in the future so as to further investigate the influence of the FP detector in IC.

[1]  E. Vano,et al.  Preliminary reference levels in interventional cardiology , 2003, European Radiology.

[2]  E. Vañó,et al.  Clinical and technical determinants of the complexity of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedures: Analysis in relation to radiation exposure parameters , 2000, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[3]  S. Pocock,et al.  Do men benefit more than women from an interventional strategy in patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? The impact of gender in the RITA 3 trial. , 2004, European heart journal.

[4]  E. Vañó,et al.  Dosimetric and radiation protection considerations based on some cases of patient skin injuries in interventional cardiology. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[5]  M. Bell,et al.  Balloon angioplasty of chronic total coronary artery occlusions: what does it cost in radiation exposure, time, and materials? , 1992, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[6]  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.

[7]  E Vañó,et al.  Patient dose related to the complexity of interventional cardiology procedures. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[9]  A R Cowen,et al.  Threshold contrast detail detectability measurement of the fluoroscopic image quality of a dynamic solid-state digital x-ray image detector. , 2001, Medical physics.

[10]  T. Ryan,et al.  Gender-related changes in the practice and outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in Northern New England from 1994 to 1999. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  E Gaxiola,et al.  Real-time measurement of skin radiation during cardiac catheterization. , 1998, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[12]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Sex-Based Differences in Early Mortality after Myocardial Infarction , 1999 .

[13]  Patient and staff dosimetry problems in interventional radiology. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[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]  B Geiger,et al.  Dynamic flat panel detector versus image intensifier in cardiac imaging: dose and image quality , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  J. Ross,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac catheterization and cardiac catheterization laboratories. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Ad Hoc Task Force on Cardiac Catheterization. , 1991, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  L. Cohn,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac catheterization and cardiac catheterization laboratories. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Ad Hoc Task Force on Cardiac Catheterization. , 1991, Circulation.

[18]  M A Wondrow,et al.  Real-time measurement of radiation exposure to patients during diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous interventional procedures. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  M. Bell,et al.  Does the use of new intracoronary interventional devices prolong radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory? , 1994, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  J I Ten,et al.  Skin radiation injuries in patients following repeated coronary angioplasty procedures. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  W. Rutishauser,et al.  Radiation exposure during diagnostic catheterization and single- and double-vessel percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. , 1987, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  J. Dahm,et al.  Effective techniques for reduction of radiation dosage to patients undergoing invasive cardiac procedures. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.