Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose.

PURPOSE To determine patient radiation doses for interventional radiology and neuroradiology procedures, to identify procedures associated with higher radiation doses, and to determine the effects of various parameters on patient doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective observational study was performed at seven academic medical centers. Each site contributed demographic and radiation dose data for subjects undergoing specific procedures in fluoroscopic suites equipped with built-in cumulative dose (CD) and dose-area-product (DAP) measurement capability compliant with International Electrotechnical Commission standard 60601-2-43. The accuracy of the dosimetry was confirmed by comprehensive measurements and by frequent consistency checks performed over the course of the study. RESULTS Data were collected on 2,142 instances of interventional radiology procedures, 48 comprehensive physics evaluations, and 581 periodic consistency checks from the 12 fluoroscopic units in the study. There were wide variations in dose and statistically significant differences in fluoroscopy time, number of images, DAP, and CD for different instances of the same procedure, depending on the nature of the lesion, its anatomic location, and the complexity of the procedure. For the 2,142 instances, observed CD and DAP correlate well overall (r = 0.83, P <.000001), but correlation in individual instances is poor. The same is true for the correlation between fluoroscopy time and CD (r = 0.79, P <.000001). The correlation between fluoroscopy time and DAP (r = 0.60, P <.000001) is not as good. In 6% of instances (128 of 2,142), which were principally embolization procedures, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedures, and renal/visceral artery stent placements, CD was greater than 5 Gy. CONCLUSIONS Most procedures studied can result in clinically significant radiation dose to the patient, even when performed by trained operators with use of dose-reducing technology and modern fluoroscopic equipment. Embolization procedures, TIPS creation, and renal/visceral artery stent placement are associated with a substantial likelihood of clinically significant patient dose. At minimum, patient dose data should be recorded in the medical record for these three types of procedures. These data should include indicators of the risk of deterministic effects as well as the risk of stochastic effects.

[1]  L. M. Anderson Statistics with Confidence. Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines , 1989 .

[2]  M A Wondrow,et al.  Effect of pulsed progressive fluoroscopy on reduction of radiation dose in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. , 1990, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  Radiation exposure during percutaneous nephrostomy. , 1991, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[4]  P J Eifel,et al.  Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. , 1994, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[5]  N Blais,et al.  Radiation doses to patients in neurointerventional procedures. , 1994, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[6]  S. Bushong Hazards evaluation of neuroangiographic procedures. , 1994, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[7]  W. Huda,et al.  Radiation-induced temporary epilation after a neuroradiologically guided embolization procedure. , 1994, Radiology.

[8]  B. Schueler,et al.  Radiation exposure and efficacy of exposure-reduction techniques during cardiac catheterization in children. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Assessment of organ radiation doses and associated risk for digital bifemoral arteriography. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  K. Faulkner,et al.  Patient and staff dosimetry in neuroradiological procedures. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  A. Norbash,et al.  Techniques for reducing interventional neuroradiologic skin dose: tube position rotation and supplemental beam filtration. , 1996, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[12]  M. Mosseri,et al.  Chronic radiodermatitis following cardiac catheterization. , 1996, Archives of dermatology.

[13]  T. Shope,et al.  Radiation-induced skin injuries from fluoroscopy. , 1996, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[14]  R. Ruiz-Cruces,et al.  Patient dose in radiologically guided interventional vascular procedures: conventional versus digital systems. , 1997, Radiology.

[15]  P. Bourland,et al.  Radiation exposure during cardiology fellowship training. , 1997, Health physics.

[16]  T. Vehmas Radiation exposure during standard and complex interventional procedures. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  T. Vehmas Hawthorne effect: shortening of fluoroscopy times during radiation measurement studies. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  J R Williams,et al.  The interdependence of staff and patient doses in interventional radiology. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[19]  B. McParland,et al.  A study of patient radiation doses in interventional radiological procedures. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[20]  L. S. Schultze Kool,et al.  Patient and staff radiation dose in fluoroscopy-guided TIPS procedures and dose reduction, using dedicated fluoroscopy exposure settings. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  F. J. Díaz Romero,et al.  Estimation of effective dose in some digital angiographic and interventional procedures. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[22]  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.

[23]  E L Siegel,et al.  Severe skin reactions from interventional fluoroscopy: case report and review of the literature. , 1999, Radiology.

[24]  K. Faulkner,et al.  Patient dosimetry measurement methods. , 1999, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[25]  E. Ritenour,et al.  The potential for radiation-induced skin damage in interventional neuroradiological procedures: a review of 522 cases using automated dosimetry. , 1999, Medical physics.

[26]  S. Abbara,et al.  Patient radiation dose associated with uterine artery embolization. , 2000, Radiology.

[27]  E. Levy,et al.  Influence of radiographic technique and equipment on absorbed ovarian dose associated with uterine artery embolization. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[28]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Diagnostic reference levels in interventional radiology , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  B. Archer,et al.  Management of patient skin dose in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[30]  J. Valentin,et al.  Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. , 2000, Annals of the ICRP.

[31]  R. Nicholson,et al.  Skin sparing in interventional radiology: the effect of copper filtration. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[32]  L. E. Sanz Different Surgical Approaches to Perform a Hysterectomy , 2000 .

[33]  R. Andrews,et al.  Uterine arterial embolization: factors influencing patient radiation exposure. , 2000, Radiology.

[34]  C. Chartrand-Lefebvre,et al.  Effect of the learning process on procedure times and radiation exposure for CT fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous biopsy procedures. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[35]  F Verhaegen,et al.  Correlation of patient skin doses in cardiac interventional radiology with dose-area product. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[36]  K Faulkner Interventional Fluoroscopy. Physics, technology, and safety. By S Balter, pp. xiii+284, 2001 (Wiley-Liss, New York, NY), £71.50 ISBN 0-471-39010-0 , 2001 .

[37]  Review of dosimetry instrumentation in digital and interventional radiology. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[38]  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.

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

[40]  S. Abbara,et al.  Uterine artery embolization: reduced radiation with refined technique. , 2001, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[41]  E J Morton,et al.  Radiation protection in interventional radiology. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[42]  J. I. Ten,et al.  Skin dose and dose-area product values for interventional cardiology procedures. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[43]  K. Faulkner,et al.  Deterministic effects in interventional radiology. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[44]  K. Faulkner Dose displays and record keeping. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[45]  Stephen Balter,et al.  Minimizing radiation-induced skin injury in interventional radiology procedures. , 2002, Radiology.

[46]  Cornelis A Grimbergen,et al.  Evaluation of vascular and interventional procedures with time-action analysis: a pilot study. , 2002, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[47]  Stephen Balter,et al.  Comparison of four techniques to estimate radiation dose to skin during angiographic and interventional radiology procedures. , 2002, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[48]  W. Huda,et al.  Adult patient doses in interventional neuroradiology. , 2002, Medical physics.

[49]  Donald L. Miller,et al.  Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part II: skin dose. , 2003, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.