Search

Japan Network for Research and Information on Medical Exposures (J-RIME) released the primary diagnostic reference levels (DRLs 2015) to optimize/manage the radiation dose for interventional radiology (IVR) on June 7, 2015 in Japan. However, this DRLs 2015 has a wide range of selection bias for only certified IVR technologists' dates. Therefore, it is important to know the radiation dose including non-certified IVR technologists' facilities. In this study, we verified the fluoroscopy radiation dose rates for many IVR systems in the present situation. This study was conducted at 13 cardiac catheterization laboratories (18 X-ray systems) around Sendai. We measured the entrance doses at the patient entrance reference point (interventional reference point) using a 20-cm-thick acrylic plate and skin-dose monitor. Although the DRLs 2015 of IVR is 20 mGy/min, the result of a fluoroscopy radiation dose in 18 X-ray systems was median (inter quartile range: IQR), 24.4 (16.3, 35.5) mGy/min. The optimization/managing the radiation dose of IVR X-ray systems is an important issue. In addition, it is necessary to intensify the activities to raise awareness for DRLs 2015.

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.

In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafeTM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R2 = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is important to evaluate the radiation eye dose (3 mm dose equivalent, Hp (3)) received by physicians during computed tomography fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided biopsy, as physicians are close to the source of scattered radiation. In this study, we measured the radiation eye dose in Hp (3) received by one physician during CTF in a timeframe of 18 months using a direct eye dosimeter, the DOSIRISTM. The physician placed eye dosimeters above and under their lead (Pb) eyeglasses. We recorded the occupational radiation dose received using a neck dosimeter, gathered CT dose-related parameters (e.g., CT-fluoroscopic acquisition number, CT-fluoroscopic time, and CT-fluoroscopic mAs), and performed a total of 95 procedures during CTF-guided biopsies. We also estimated the eye dose (Hp (3)) received using neck personal dosimeters and CT dose-related parameters. The physician eye doses (right and left side) received in terms of Hp (3) without the use of Pb eyeglasses for 18 months were 2.25 and 2.06 mSv, respectively. The protective effect of the Pb eyeglasses (0.5 mm Pb) on the right and left sides during CTF procedures was 27.8 and 37.5%, respectively. This study proved the existence of significant correlations between the eye and neck dose measurement (right and left sides, R2 = 0.82 and R2 = 0.55, respectively) in physicians. In addition, we found significant correlations between CT-related parameters, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs, and radiation eye doses (right and left sides, R2 = 0.50 and R2 = 0.52, respectively). The eye dose of Hp (3) received in CTF was underestimated when evaluated using neck dosimeters. Therefore, we suggest that the physician involved in CTF use a direct eye dosimeter such as the DOSIRIS for the accurate evaluation of their eye lens dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms has attracted considerable attention as a promising alternative to traditional surgery. Hybrid operating room systems (HORSs) are increasingly being used to perform endovascular procedures. The clinical benefits of endovascular treatments using HORSs are very clear, and these procedures are increasing in number. In procedures such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), wires and catheters are used to deliver and deploy the stent graft in the thoracic/abdominal aorta under fluoroscopic control, including DSA. Thus, the radiation dose to the patient is an important issue. We determined radiation dose indicators (the dose–area product (DAP) and air karma (AK) parameters) associated with endovascular treatments (EVAR and TEVAR) using a HORS. As a result, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) DAPs of TEVAR and EVAR were 323.7 ± 161.0 and 371.3 ± 186.0 Gy × cm2, respectively. The mean ± SD AKs of TEVAR and EVAR were 0.92 ± 0.44 and 1.11 ± 0.54 Gy, respectively. The mean ± SD fluoroscopy times of TEVAR and EVAR were 13.4 ± 7.1 and 23.2 ± 11.7 min, respectively. Patient radiation dose results in this study of endovascular treatments using HORSs showed no deterministic radiation effects, such as skin injuries. However, radiation exposure during TEVAR and EVAR cannot be ignored. The radiation dose should be evaluated in HORSs during endovascular treatments. Reducing/optimizing the radiation dose to the patient in HORSs is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]