Madan M. Rehani

Risk for radiation-induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern?†‡

Objectives: To examine the prevalence of radiation‐associated lens opacities among interventional cardiologists and nurses and correlate with occupational radiation exposure. Background: Interventional cardiology personnel are exposed to relatively high levels of X‐rays and based on recent findings of radiation‐associated lens opacities in other cohorts, they may be at risk for cataract without use of ocular radiation protection. Methods: Eyes of interventional cardiologists, nurses, and age‐ and sex‐matched unexposed controls were screened by dilated slit lamp examination and posterior lens changes graded using a modified Merriam‐Focht technique. Individual cumulative lens X‐ray exposure was calculated from responses to a questionnaire and personal interview. Results: The prevalence of radiation‐associated posterior lens opacities was 52% (29/56, 95% CI: 35–73) for interventional cardiologists, 45% (5/11, 95% CI: 15–100) for nurses, and 9% (2/22, 95% CI: 1–33) for controls. Relative risks of lens opacity was 5.7 (95% CI: 1.5–22) for interventional cardiologists and 5.0 (95% CI: 1.2–21) for nurses. Estimated cumulative ocular doses ranged from 0.01 to 43 Gy with mean and median values of 3.4 and 1.0 Gy, respectively. A strong dose–response relationship was found between occupational exposure and the prevalence of radiation‐associated posterior lens changes. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate a dose dependent increased risk of posterior lens opacities for interventional cardiologists and nurses when radiation protection tools are not used. While study of a larger cohort is needed to confirm these findings, the results suggest ocular radio‐protection should be utilized.

Radiation Cataract Risk in Interventional Cardiology Personnel

Abstract The lens of the eye is one of the most radiosensitive tissues in the body, and exposure of the lens to ionizing radiation can cause cataract. Cumulative X-ray doses to the lenses of interventional cardiologists and associated staff can be high. The International Commission on Radiological Protection recently noted considerable uncertainty concerning radiation risk to the lens. This study evaluated risk of radiation cataract after occupational exposure in interventional cardiology personnel. Comprehensive dilated slit-lamp examinations were performed in interventional cardiologists, associated workers and controls. Radiation exposures were estimated using experimental data from catheterization laboratories and answers to detailed questionnaires. A total of 116 exposed and 93 similarly aged nonexposed individuals were examined. The relative risk of posterior subcapsular opacities in interventional cardiologists compared to unexposed controls was 3.2 (38% compared to 12%; P < 0.005). A total of 21% of nurses and technicians had radiation-associated posterior lens changes typically associated with ionizing radiation exposure. Cumulative median values of lens doses were estimated at 6.0 Sv for cardiologists and 1.5 Sv for associated medical personnel. A significantly elevated incidence of radiation-associated lens changes in interventional cardiology workers indicates there is an urgent need to educate these professionals in radiation protection to reduce the likelihood of cataract.

Radiation doses in computed tomography : The increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled

Computed tomography has made dramatic advances, both in its breadth of application and in its technological improvements. The advances are such that it is possible with the spiral technique to carry out an entire examination of the chest within a single breathhold as against a few minutes in earlier systems. Yet these advances have brought with them the potential for greatly increased doses of radiation to the patient. Until a few years ago computed tomography constituted about 2-3% of all radiological examinations but contributed about 20-30% of the total radiation load from medical use of ionising radiation.1 2 A recent report from the Royal College of Radiologists in the United Kingdom states, “CT now probably contributes almost half of the collective dose from all x ray examinations.”3 Although magnetic resonance imaging was expected to reduce the frequency of computed tomography, this has not happened. Indeed, the use of computed tomography has grown. It is now often used as an adjunct to radiotherapy or chemotherapy; interventional procedures use computed tomography …

ICRP Publication 120: Radiological Protection in Cardiology

Cardiac nuclear medicine, cardiac computed tomography (CT), interventional cardiology procedures, and electrophysiology procedures are increasing in number and account for an important share of patient radiation exposure in medicine. Complex percutaneous coronary interventions and cardiac electrophysiology procedures are associated with high radiation doses. These procedures can result in patient skin doses that are high enough to cause radiation injury and an increased risk of cancer. Treatment of congenital heart disease in children is of particular concern. Additionally, staff(1) in cardiac catheterisation laboratories may receive high doses of radiation if radiological protection tools are not used properly. The Commission provided recommendations for radiological protection during fluoroscopically guided interventions in Publication 85, for radiological protection in CT in Publications 87 and 102, and for training in radiological protection in Publication 113 (ICRP, 2000b,c, 2007a, 2009). This report is focused specifically on cardiology, and brings together information relevant to cardiology from the Commissions published documents. There is emphasis on those imaging procedures and interventions specific to cardiology. The material and recommendations in the current document have been updated to reflect the most recent recommendations of the Commission. This report provides guidance to assist the cardiologist with justification procedures and optimisation of protection in cardiac CT studies, cardiac nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopically guided cardiac interventions. It includes discussions of the biological effects of radiation, principles of radiological protection, protection of staff during fluoroscopically guided interventions, radiological protection training, and establishment of a quality assurance programme for cardiac imaging and intervention. As tissue injury, principally skin injury, is a risk for fluoroscopically guided interventions, particular attention is devoted to clinical examples of radiation-related skin injuries from cardiac interventions, methods to reduce patient radiation dose, training recommendations, and quality assurance programmes for interventional fluoroscopy.

Radiation-associated Lens Opacities in Catheterization Personnel: Results of a Survey and Direct Assessments

PURPOSE To estimate ocular radiation doses and prevalence of lens opacities in a group of interventional catheterization professionals and offer practical recommendations based on these findings to avoid future lens damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS Subjects included 58 physicians and 69 nurses and technicians attending an interventional cardiology congress and appropriate unexposed age-matched controls. Lens dose estimates were derived from combining experimental measurements in catheterization laboratories with questionnaire responses regarding workload, types of procedures, and use of eye protection. Lens opacities were observed by dilated slit lamp examination using indirect illumination and retroillumination. The frequency and severity of posterior lens changes were compared between the exposed and unexposed groups. The severity of posterior lens changes was correlated with cumulative eye dose. RESULTS Posterior subcapsular lens changes characteristic of ionizing radiation exposure were found in 50% of interventional cardiologists and 41% of nurses and technicians compared with findings of similar lens changes in<10% of controls. Estimated cumulative eye doses ranged from 0.1-18.9 Sv. Most lens injuries result after several years of work without eye protection. CONCLUSIONS A high prevalence of lens changes likely induced by radiation exposure in the study population suggests an urgent need for improved radiation safety and training, use of eye protection during catheterization procedures, and improved occupational dosimetry.

Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside the Imaging Department

An increasing number of medical specialists are using fluoroscopy outside imaging departments, but there has been general neglect of radiological protection coverage of fluoroscopy machines used outside imaging departments. Lack of radiological protection training of those working with fluoroscopy outside imaging departments can increase the radiation risk to workers and patients. Procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair, renal angioplasty, iliac angioplasty, ureteric stent placement, therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography,and bile duct stenting and drainage have the potential to impart skin doses exceeding Gy. Although tissue reactions among patients and workers from fluoroscopy procedures have, to date, only been reported in interventional radiology and cardiology,the level of fluoroscopy use outside imaging departments creates potential for such injuries.A brief account of the health effects of ionising radiation and protection principles is presented in Section 2. Section 3 deals with general aspects of the protection of workers and patients that are common to all, whereas specific aspects are covered in Section 4 for vascular surgery, urology, orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology,gastroenterology and hepatobiliary system, and anaesthetics and pain management.Although sentinel lymph node biopsy involves the use of radio-isotopic methods rather than fluoroscopy, performance of this procedure in operating theatres is covered in this report as it is unlikely that this topic will be addressed in another ICRP publication in coming years. Information on radiation dose levels to patients and workers, and dose management is presented for each speciality.

ICRP publication 121: radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology.

Paediatric patients have a higher average risk of developing cancer compared with adults receiving the same dose. The longer life expectancy in children allows more time for any harmful effects of radiation to manifest, and developing organs and tissues are more sensitive to the effects of radiation. This publication aims to provide guiding principles of radiological protection for referring clinicians and clinical staff performing diagnostic imaging and interventional procedures for paediatric patients. It begins with a brief description of the basic concepts of radiological protection, followed by the general aspects of radiological protection, including principles of justification and optimisation. Guidelines and suggestions for radiological protection in specific modalities - radiography and fluoroscopy, interventional radiology, and computed tomography - are subsequently covered in depth. The report concludes with a summary and recommendations. The importance of rigorous justification of radiological procedures is emphasised for every procedure involving ionising radiation, and the use of imaging modalities that are non-ionising should always be considered. The basic aim of optimisation of radiological protection is to adjust imaging parameters and institute protective measures such that the required image is obtained with the lowest possible dose of radiation, and that net benefit is maximised to maintain sufficient quality for diagnostic interpretation. Special consideration should be given to the availability of dose reduction measures when purchasing new imaging equipment for paediatric use. One of the unique aspects of paediatric imaging is with regards to the wide range in patient size (and weight), therefore requiring special attention to optimisation and modification of equipment, technique, and imaging parameters. Examples of good radiographic and fluoroscopic technique include attention to patient positioning, field size and adequate collimation, use of protective shielding, optimisation of exposure factors, use of pulsed fluoroscopy, limiting fluoroscopy time, etc. Major paediatric interventional procedures should be performed by experienced paediatric interventional operators, and a second, specific level of training in radiological protection is desirable (in some countries, this is mandatory). For computed tomography, dose reduction should be optimised by the adjustment of scan parameters (such as mA, kVp, and pitch) according to patient weight or age, region scanned, and study indication (e.g. images with greater noise should be accepted if they are of sufficient diagnostic quality). Other strategies include restricting multiphase examination protocols, avoiding overlapping of scan regions, and only scanning the area in question. Up-to-date dose reduction technology such as tube current modulation, organ-based dose modulation, auto kV technology, and iterative reconstruction should be utilised when appropriate. It is anticipated that this publication will assist institutions in encouraging the standardisation of procedures, and that it may help increase awareness and ultimately improve practices for the benefit of patients.

Radiation Exposure to Patients During Interventional Procedures in 20 Countries: Initial IAEA Project Results

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to investigate the level of radiation protection of patients and staff during interventional procedures in 20 countries of Africa, Asia, and Europe. SUBJECTS AND METHODS In a multinational prospective study, information on radiation protection tools, peak skin dose (PSD), and kerma-area product (KAP) was provided by 55 hospitals in 20 mainly developing countries (nine mostly in Eastern Europe, five in Africa, and six in Asia). RESULTS Nearly 40% of the interventional rooms had an annual workload of more than 2,000 patients. It is remarkable that the workload of pediatric interventional procedures can reach the levels of adult procedures even in developing countries. About 30% of participating countries have shown a 100% increase in workload in 3 years. Lead aprons are used in all participating rooms. Even though KAP was available in almost half of the facilities, none had experience in its use. One hundred of 505 patients monitored for PSD (20%) were above the 2-Gy threshold for deterministic effects. CONCLUSION Interventional procedures are increasing in developing countries, not only for adults but also for pediatric patients. The situation with respect to staff protection is considered generally acceptable, but this is not the case for patient protection. Many patients exceeded the dose threshold for erythema. A substantial number (62%) of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedures performed in developing countries in this study are above the currently known dose reference level and thus could be optimized. Therefore, this study has significance in introducing the concept of patient dose estimation and dose management.

Patient Doses in Radiographic Examinations in 12 Countries in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe: Initial Results from IAEA Projects

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to survey image quality and the entrance surface air kerma for patients in radiographic examinations and to perform comparisons with diagnostic reference levels. SUBJECTS AND METHODS In this multinational prospective study, image quality and patient radiation doses were surveyed in 12 countries in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, covering 45 hospitals. The rate of unsatisfactory images and image quality grade were noted, and causes for poor image quality were investigated. The entrance surface doses for adult patients were determined in terms of the entrance surface air kerma on the basis of X-ray tube output measurements and X-ray exposure parameters. Comparison of dose levels with diagnostic reference levels was performed. RESULTS The fraction of images rated as poor was as high as 53%. The image quality improved up to 16 percentage points in Africa, 13 in Asia, and 22 in Eastern Europe after implementation of a quality control (QC) program. Patient doses varied by a factor of up to 88, although the majority of doses were below diagnostic reference levels. The mean entrance surface air kerma values in mGy were 0.33 (chest, posteroanterior), 4.07 (lumbar spine, anteroposterior), 8.53 (lumbar spine, lateral), 3.64 (abdomen, anteroposterior), 3.68 (pelvis, anteroposterior), and 2.41 (skull, anteroposterior). Patient doses were found to be similar to doses in developed countries and patient dose reductions ranging from 1.4% to 85% were achieved. CONCLUSION Poor image quality constitutes a major source of unnecessary radiation to patients in developing countries. Comparison with other surveys indicates that patient dose levels in these countries are not higher than those in developed countries.

Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure: results from the 65 country IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Cross-Sectional Study (INCAPS)

Aims To characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiation-optimizing ‘best practices’ worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose. Methods and results We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March–April 2013. Eight ‘best practices’ relating to radiation exposure were identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more ‘best practices’ had lower EDs. Conclusion Marked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globally.