Radiation exposure during neurointerventional procedures in modern angiographic systems: A single center experience

Snežana  Lukić; Lukas Rasulić; Vojin  Kovačević; Filip Vitošević; Andrija Savić; Milan Mijailović

doi:10.2298/VSP180112024L

Snežana Lukić University of Kragujevac, Serbia, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Radiology, Kragujevac, Serbia
Lukas Rasulić University of Belgrade, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia
Vojin Kovačević University of Kragujevac, Serbia, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Kragujevac, Serbia
Filip Vitošević Clinical Center of Serbia, Center for Radiology and MRI, Belgrade, Serbia
Andrija Savić Clinical Center of Serbia, Clinic for Neurosurgery, Belgrade, Serbia
Milan Mijailović University of Kragujevac, Serbia, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Radiology, Kragujevac, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP180112024L

Keywords: dose-response relationship, radiation, neuroradiography, radiation dosage, radiation protection

Abstract

Background/Aim. Interventional neuroradiology procedures expose patients to ionizing radiation. The aim of this study was to assess doses received by patients during interventional neuroradiology procedures and to establish dose range with an estimate of risk from adverse consequences of irradiation. Methods. Our study describes series of patients submitted to diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures at the Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, Clinical Center Kragujevac, Serbia, from December 1, 2014 to December 1, 2016. The following variables were considered for this study: kerma-area product, air kerma and fluoroscopy exposure time; peak skin dose and effective dose calculated from the kerma-area product. Results. Median kerma-area product was 87.802 Gy∙cm², 78.567 Gy∙cm², 117.626 Gy∙cm²; effective dose was 12.731 mSv, 11.392 mSv, 17.056 mSv; peak skin dose was 0.456 Gy, 0.409 Gy, 0.612 Gy, and estimated brain dose was 254.62 mGy, 227.84 mGy, 341.12 mGy, for diagnostic, therapeutic and combined procedures, respectively. Conclusion. Interventional neuroradiology procedures show significant variability in radiation dose, due to patient constitution, radiologist expertise and equipment factors. Knowing the doses can have a great benefit for patients and medical and paramedical stff in terms of prevention of possible deterministic and stochastic effects of the radiation.

References

Kanzaki T, Andou M, Okada H, Nakamura S, Takei H, Sutou T, et al. The survey of radiation dose in radiofrequency catheter ablation. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 2013; 69(12): 1412‒7. (Japanese)

Ingwersen M, Drabik A, Kulka U, Oestreicher U, Fricke S, Krank-enberg H, et al. Physicians' radiation exposure in the catheteri-zation lab: does the type of procedure matter? JACC Cardio-vasc Interv 2013; 6(10): 1095‒102.

Chida K, Kato M, Kagaya Y, Zuguchi M, Saito H, Ishibashi T, et al. Radiation dose and radiation protection for patients and physicians during interventional procedure. J Radiat Res 2010; 51(2): 97‒105.

Hassan AE, Amelot S. Radiation Exposure during Neurointer-ventional Procedures in Modern Biplane Angiographic Sys-tems: A Single-Site Experience. Intervent Neurol 2017; 6(3‒4): 105‒16.

Moon EK, Wang W, Newman JS, Bayona-Molano Mdel P. Chal-lenges in interventional radiology: the pregnant patient. Semin Intervent Radiol 2013; 30(4): 394‒402.

Hidajat N, Wust P, Felix R, Schröder RJ. Radiation exposure to patient and staff in hepatic chemoembolization: risk estima-tion of cancer and deterministic effects. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2006; 29(5): 791‒6.

Patient dosimetry for x rays used in medical imaging. J ICRU 2005; 5(2): iv‒vi.

Vano E, Järvinen H, Kosunen A, Bly R, Malone J, Dowling A, et al. Patient dose in interventional radiology: a European sur-vey. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129(1‒3): 39‒45.

Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Berenstein A, Albert R, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part II: skin dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14(8): 977‒90.

Struelens L, Vanhavere F, Bosmans H, Van Loon R, Mol H. Skin dose measurements on patients for diagnostic and interven-tional neuroradiology: a multicenter study. Radiat Prot Do-simetry 2005; 114(1‒3): 143‒6.

Sanchez RM, Vano E, Fernández JM, Moreu M, Lopez-Ibor L. Brain radiation doses to patients in an interventional neuro-radiology laboratory. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35(7): 1276‒80.

Schneider T, Wyse E, Pearl MS. Analysis of radiation doses in-curred during diagnostic cerebral angiography after the imple-mentation of dose reduction strategies. J Neurointerv Surg 2017; 9(4): 384‒8.

Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M, Hendry JH, Kleiman NJ, Macvittie TJ, et al. ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs--threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 2012; 41(1‒2): 1‒322.

Chun CW, Kim BS, Lee CH, Ihn YK, Shin YS. Patient radiation dose in diagnostic and interventional procedures for intracra-nial aneurysms: experience at a single center. Korean J Radiol 2014; 15(6): 844‒9.

Stratis AI, Anthopoulos PL, Gavaliatsis IP, Ifantis GP, Sala-has AI, Antonellis IP, et al. Patient dose in cardiac radiology. Hellenic J Cardiol 2009; 50(1): 17‒25.

Aroua A, Rickli H, Stauffer JC, Schnyder P, Trueb PR, Valley JF, et al. How to set up and apply reference levels in fluoroscopy at a national level. Eur Radiol 2007; 17(6): 1621‒33.

Zontar D, Zdesar U, Kuhelj D, Pekarovic D, Skrk D. Estimated collective effective dose to the population from radiological examinations in Slovenia. Radiol Oncol 2015; 49(1): 99‒106.

Tapiovaara M, Siiskonen T. PCXMC, A Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations. 2nd ed. Helsinki: STUK-Radiation and Nuclear Safety Au-thority of Finland; 2008.

Urairat J, Asavaphatiboon S, Singhara Na Ayuthaya S, Pongnapang N. Evaluation of radiation dose to patients undergoing inter-ventional radiology procedures at Ramathibodi Hospital, Thailand. Biomed Imaging Interv J 2011; 7(3): e22.

Söderman M, Mauti M, Boon S, Omar A, Marteinsdóttir M, An-dersson T, et al. Radiation dose in neuroangiography using im-age noise reduction technology: a population study based on 614 patients. Neuroradiology 2013; 55(11): 1365‒72.

Walsh C, O'Callaghan A, Moore D, O'Neill S, Madhavan P, Col-gan MP, et al. Measurement and optimization of patient radia-tion doses in endovascular aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endo-vasc Surg2012; 43(5): 534‒9.

Gailloud P. A large display is a powerful tool to reduce radia-tion exposure during single-plane fluoroscopically guided pro-cedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204(4): 483‒5.

Kuhelj D, Zdesar U, Jevtic V, Skrk D, Omahen G, Zontar D, et al. Risk of deterministic effects during endovascular aortic stent graft implantation. Br J Radiol 2010; 83(995): 958‒63.

Kalef-Ezra JA, Karavasilis S, Ziogas D, Dristiliaris D, Michalis LK, Matsagas M. Radiation burden of patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49(2): 283‒7; discussion 287.

The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37(2‒4): 1‒332.

IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2012.

Heuser LJ, Arnold CN, Morhard D, Köhler M, Gross-Fengels W, Bücker A. Quality report 2011 of the German Society of In-terventional Radiology (DeGIR), part 2. Endovascular treat-ment of aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Rofo 2013; 185(8): 709‒19. (German)