Strategies for radiation exposure-sparing in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures.

BACKGROUND: Minimizing radiation exposure during x-ray fluoroscopically guided procedures is critical to patients and to medical personnel. Tableside adjustment of x-ray image acquisition parameters can vary the fluoroscopic radiation exposure rate. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of adjusting four tableside controllable image acquisition parameters on x-ray fluoroscopic radiation exposure rate. METHODS: We made fluoroscopic exposures of a standard radiologic phantom to measure radiation exposure rates as kerma•area product per second of exposure and milligray per x-ray pulse under all possible combinations of detector zoom mode, collimated image field size, fluoroscopy dose mode, and fluoroscopy pulse frequency. RESULTS: Kerma•area product per second was linearly proportional to pulse frequency. Selecting larger detector zoom modes, smaller collimated image field sizes and low dose fluoroscopy mode each decreased exposure rate. We found a > 20-fold variation in dose rates over the range of acquisition parameter combinations. CONCLUSIONS: Selecting the most appropriate fluoroscopy acquisition parameters enables physician operators to adjust radiation exposure rates over a large range. Judicious selection of acquisition parameters can reduce patient and medical personnel radiation exposure by as much as 95% compared to "standard" fluoroscopy protocol settings.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 2: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure to clinical personnel. While the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. ACC leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. "Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging - Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness" is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. "Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology" addresses radiation physics, dosimetry and detrimental biologic effects. "Part II: Radiologic Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection" covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy). For each modality, it includes the determinants of radiation exposure and techniques to minimize exposure to both patients and to medical personnel.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 1: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways Developed in Collaboration With Mended Hearts.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure for clinical personnel. Although the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. The American College of Cardiology leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging: Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology addresses the issue of medical radiation exposure, the basics of radiation physics and dosimetry, and the basics of radiation biology and radiation-induced adverse effects. Part II: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy) and will be published in the next issue of the Journal.

A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention: this statement is endorsed by the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

Recently, a debate over the merits of statin therapy in primary prevention was published in the Wall Street Journal. The statin opponent claimed that statins should only be used in secondary prevention and never in any primary-prevention patients at risk for cardiovascular events. In this evidence-based rebuttal to those claims, we review the evidence supporting the efficacy of statin therapy in primary prevention. Cardiovascular risk is a continuum in which those at an elevated risk of events stand to benefit from early initiation of therapy. Statins should not be reserved until after a patient suffers the catastrophic consequences of atherosclerosis. Contrary to the assertions of the statin opponent, this principle has been demonstrated through reductions in heart attacks, strokes, and mortality in numerous randomized controlled primary-prevention statin trials. Furthermore, data show that once a patient tolerates the initial treatment period, the few side effects that subsequently emerge are largely reversible. Accordingly, every major guidelines committee endorses statin use in secondary prevention and selectively in primary prevention for those with risk factors. The foundation for prevention remains increased physical activity, better dietary habits, and smoking cessation. However, prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease does not have to be all or none-all statin or all lifestyle. In selected at-risk individuals, the combination of pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes is more effective than either alone. Future investigation in prevention should focus on improving our ability to identify these at-risk individuals.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an update of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization frequently considered. In the initial document, 180 clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document, and the definition of appropriateness was unchanged. The technical panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate and likely to improve patients' health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization is considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization will improve health outcomes or survival is uncertain. In general, as seen with the prior AUC, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia is appropriate. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy are viewed less favorably. The technical panel felt that based on recent studies, coronary artery bypass grafting remains an appropriate method of revascularization for patients with high burden of coronary artery disease (CAD). Additionally, percutaneous coronary intervention may have a role in revascularization of patients with high burden of CAD. The primary objective of the appropriate use criteria is to improve physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and to guide future research.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 Appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an update of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization frequently considered. In the initial document, 180 clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document, and the definition of appropriateness was unchanged. The technical panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate and likely to improve patients' health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization is considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization will improve health outcomes or survival is uncertain. In general, as seen with the prior AUC, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia is appropriate. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy are viewed less favorably. The technical panel felt that based on recent studies, coronary artery bypass grafting remains an appropriate method of revascularization for patients with high burden of coronary artery disease (CAD). Additionally,percutaneous coronary intervention may have a role in revascularization of patients with high burden of CAD. The primary objective of the appropriate use criteria is to improve physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and to guide future research.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization : a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.