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.

Should risk from medical imaging be assessed in the absence of benefit and vice versa?

Diagnostic radiology has an image problem. In its effort to develop a better understanding of benefit-risk in medical radiology, data on potential risks associated with medical imaging have been welcomed into the medical community. As such, risk perspectives and mantras from the occupational health profession have been adopted and applied to patients. These perspectives often focus on risk with only casual, incidental, or no reference to the benefits experienced by patients. These occupational health viewpoints have accumulated over decades, have overshadowed a very limited perspective about the benefits of medical X-rays, and have become an integrated part of our profession. This review argues that the medical profession should abandon perspectives on risk that are adopted from occupational health professions and focus on perspectives that realistically focus on the medical benefit-risk for patients.

If it is published in the peer-reviewed literature, it must be true?

Epidemiological research correlating cancer rates in a population of patients with radiation doses from medical X-rays is fraught with confounding factors that obfuscate the likelihood that any positive relationship is causal. This is a review of four studies involving some of those confounding factors. Comparisons of findings with other studies not encumbered by similar confounding factors can enhance assertions of causation between medical X-rays and cancer rates. Even so, such assertions rest significantly on opinions of researchers regarding the degree of consistency between findings among various studies. The question as to what degree any findings truly represent cause and effect will likely still meet with controversy. The importance of these findings to medicine should therefore not lie in any controversy regarding causation, but in what the findings potentially mean with regard to benefit and risk for patients and the professional practice of medicine.

Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge.

This special report aims to inform the medical community about the many challenges involved in managing radiation exposure in a way that maximizes the benefit-risk ratio. The report discusses the state of current knowledge and key questions in regard to sources of medical imaging radiation exposure, radiation risk estimation, dose reduction strategies, and regulatory options.

Resident education in the radiological sciences: what now?

OBJECTIVE: With the dizzying changes in the rapidly evolving profession of radiology, the structure of resident education in the associated sciences of imaging, physics, radiobiology, and radiation effects must be reevaluated continually. What roles do these basic radiologic sciences play in bolstering the neophyte radiologist on a career of patient care? How should we define the spectrum of material that should be learned? How should that spectrum be taught? Who decides these things? With the impending changes in the radiology board certification process, questions have been raised as to how these changes will affect education in a residency program. Should the basic science curriculum be enhanced or scaled back? With the emphasis on practical applied physics, what is considered old school and what is new school material? CONCLUSION: This article describes one approach adopted by a large residency program to address these issues.

Can radiation risks to patients be reduced without reducing radiation exposure? The status of chemical radioprotectants.

OBJECTIVE: Medical radiation exposure has increased sixfold since 1980 and is the largest controllable source of exposure. Many efforts have been devoted to reducing dose or eliminating unnecessary examinations but with limited success. The concern regarding nuclear terrorism has focused a large amount of attention on radioprotective drugs. The purpose of this article is twofold: to review the current concepts, potential, and limitations of chemical radioprotectants in reducing stochastic and deterministic effects and to assess the potential application to diagnostic and interventional medical radiation procedures. CONCLUSION: There are a wide variety of chemical compounds that have been studied for radioprotective effects. Although there is promising research, chemical radioprotectants have not been shown to be very effective and, with one limited exception, are not the standard of care in medicine.

Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients' skin and hair.

Most advice currently available with regard to fluoroscopic skin reactions is based on a table published in 1994. Many caveats in that report were not included in later reproductions, and subsequent research has yielded additional insights. This review is a consensus report of current scientific data. Expected skin reactions for an average patient are presented in tabular form as a function of peak skin dose and time after irradiation. The text and table indicate the variability of reactions in different patients. Images of injuries to skin and underlying tissues in patients and animals are provided and are categorized according to the National Cancer Institute skin toxicity scale, offering a basis for describing cutaneous radiation reactions in interventional fluoroscopy and quantifying their clinical severity. For a single procedure performed in most individuals, noticeable skin changes are observed approximately 1 month after a peak skin dose exceeding several grays. The degree of injury to skin and subcutaneous tissue increases with dose. Specialized wound care may be needed when irradiation exceeds 10 Gy. Residual effects from radiation therapy and from previous procedures influence the response of skin and subcutaneous tissues to subsequent procedures. Skin irradiated to a dose higher than 3-5 Gy often looks normal but reacts abnormally when irradiation is repeated. If the same area of skin is likely to be exposed to levels higher than a few grays, the effects of previous irradiation should be included when estimating the expected tissue reaction from the additional procedure.

Clinical radiation management for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures.

The primary goal of radiation management in interventional radiology is to minimize the unnecessary use of radiation. Clinical radiation management minimizes radiation risk to the patient without increasing other risks, such as procedural risks. A number of factors are considered when estimating the likelihood and severity of patient radiation effects. These include demographic factors, medical history factors, and procedure factors. Important aspects of the patient's medical history include coexisting diseases and genetic factors, medication use, radiation history, and pregnancy. As appropriate, these are evaluated as part of the preprocedure patient evaluation; radiation risk to the patient is considered along with other procedural risks. Dose optimization is possible through appropriate use of the basic features of interventional fluoroscopic equipment and intelligent use of dose-reducing technology. For all fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, it is good practice to monitor radiation dose throughout the procedure and record it in the patient's medical record. Patients who have received a clinically significant radiation dose should be followed up after the procedure for possible deterministic effects. The authors recommend including radiation management as part of the departmental quality assurance program.

X-ray burns--painful, protracted, and preventable.

Very high doses of x-ray may produce deep burns in the backs of patients having fluoroscopically guided cardiac interventional procedures. While these incidents are uncommon they can be prevented by judicious limitation of fluoroscopy and timely repositioning of the x-ray tube. Better education and improved methods for dose mapping should make these distressing complications a thing of the past.

The effect of fellows' training in invasive cardiology on radiological exposure of patients.

The aim of this work was to evaluate and quantify the impact of an invasive training of cardiology fellows on some exposure parameters. From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002, three staff members performed 2.582 diagnostic procedures (Group 1) that were compared with 819 performed by, or with the participation of five cardiology fellows (Group 2). Exposure parameters were as follows (Group 1/Group 2): fluoroscopy time 3.8 +/- 4.5/5.5 +/- 5.9 min (+38%), mean number of frames 589 +/- 282/642 +/- 260 (+9%), Kerma-area product (KAP) during fluoroscopy 10.6 +/- 14/15.5 +/- 16 Gycm2 (+45%), KAP during cine-angiography 20.8 +/- 14/22.5 +/- 12 (+8%), total KAP 31.5 +/- 28/38.1 +/- 28 (+21%). Differences were all significant (P

Impact of using scatter-mimicking beams instead of standard beams to measure penetration when assessing the protective value of radiation-protective garments.

PURPOSE: Use standardized methods to determine how assessment of protective value of radiation-protective garments changes under conditions employing standard beam qualities, scatter-mimicking primary beams, and a modified Hp (10) measurement. METHODS: The shielding properties of radiation-protective garments depend on the spectrum of beam energies striking the garment and the attenuation properties of materials used to construct the garment, including x-ray fluorescence produced by these materials. In this study the primary beam spectra employed during clinical interventional radiology and cardiology procedures (clinical primary beams, CPB) were identified using radiation dose structured reports (RDSR) and fluoroscope log data. Monte Carlo simulation was used to determine the scattered radiation spectra produced by these CPB during typical clinical application. For these scattered spectra, scatter-mimicking primary beams (SMPB) were determined using numerical optimization-based spectral reconstruction that adjusted kV and filtration to produce the SMPB that optimally matched the scattered spectrum for each CPB. The penetration of a subset of SMPB through four radiation-protective garments of varying compositions and nominal thicknesses was measured using a geometry specified by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The diagnostic radiological index of protection (DRIP), which increases with increasing penetration through a garment, was calculated using these measurements. Penetration through the same garments was measured for standard beams specified by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Finally, 10 mm of PMMA was affixed to the inside of each garment and the DRIP remeasured in this configuration to simulate Hp (10). RESULTS: The SMPB based on actual CPB were in general characterized by lower kV (range 60-76) and higher half-value layer (HVL, range 3.44-4.89 mm Al) than standard beam qualities specified by ASTM (kV range 70-85; HVL range 3.4-4.0 mm Al). A lead garment of nominal thickness 0.5 mm (D) had a DRIP of 0.8%, two lead-free garments of 0.5 mm nominal thickness had DRIPs of 1.2% (A) and 2.2% (B), and a lead-free bilayer (C) had a DRIP of 1.4%. When standard beam qualities specified by the ASTM were used, the DRIP for D was 2.2%, 175% higher than the DRIP measured using SMPB, and for A, B, and C was 2.8%, 3.2%, and 2.9%, respectively. This was 133%, 45%, and 107% higher than the DRIP measured using SMPB. Differences between the DRIP of lead-alternative garments and the lead garment were reduced when measured with 10 mm of PMMA. Using this method, the measured DRIPs were 2.2% (A), 3.1% (B), 2.5% (C), and 2.3% (D). CONCLUSIONS: Penetration of radiation through radiation-protective garments depended strongly on the methods and X-ray spectra used for evaluation. The DRIP was higher (i.e., protective value was lower) for lead-alternative garments than for lead garments in this evaluation. The DRIP was lower for all garments when SMPB based on actual clinical beam quality data were used to measure penetration compared to ASTM standard beams. Differences in penetration between lead-alternative and lead garments were less when the DRIP was measured with 10 mm of PMMA between the garment and the chamber.

Comparison of skin dose measurement using nanoDot® dosimeter and machine readings of radiation dose during cardiac catheterization in children.

OBJECTIVES: Direct measurement of skin dose of radiation for children using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology using nanoDot® (Landauer, Glenwood, IL, USA). BACKGROUND: Radiation dose is estimated as cumulative air kerma (AK) and dosearea product based on standards established for adult size patients. Body size of pediatric patients who undergo cardiac catheterization for congenital heart disease vary widely from newborn to adolescence. Direct, skindose measurement applying OSL technology may eliminate errors in the estimate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nanoDot® (1 cm × 1 cm × flat plastic cassette) is applied to patient's skin using adhesive tape during cardiac catheterization and radiation skin doses were read within 24 hrs. nanoDot® values were compared to the currently available cumulative AK values estimated and displayed on fluoroscopy monitor. RESULTS: A total of 12 children were studied, aged 4 months to 18 years (median 1.1 years) and weight range 5.3-86 kg (median 8.4 kg). nanoDot® readings ranged from 2.58 mGy to 424.8 mGy (median 84.1 mGy). Cumulative AK ranged from 16.2 mGy to 571.2 mGy (median 171.1 mGy). Linear correlation was noted between nanoDot® values and AK values (R2 = 0.88, R = 0.94). nanoDot® readings were approximately 65% of the estimated cumulative AK estimated using the International Electrotechnical Commission standards. CONCLUSIONS: Application of OSL technology using nanoDot® provides an alternative to directly measure fluoroscopic skin dose in children during cardiac catheterization. Our data show that the actual skin dose for children is approximately one-third lower than the AK estimated using international standards for adult size patients.

Sensitivity of the diagnostic radiological index of protection to procedural factors in fluoroscopy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of the diagnostic radiological index of protection (DRIP), used to quantify the protective value of radioprotective garments, to procedural factors in fluoroscopy in an effort to determine an appropriate set of scatter-mimicking primary beams to be used in measuring the DRIP. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine the shape of the scattered x-ray spectra incident on the operator in different clinical fluoroscopy scenarios, including interventional radiology and interventional cardiology (IC). Two clinical simulations studied the sensitivity of the scattered spectrum to gantry angle and patient size, while technical factors were varied according to measured automatic dose rate control (ADRC) data. Factorial simulations studied the sensitivity of the scattered spectrum to gantry angle, field of view, patient size, and beam quality for constant technical factors. Average energy (Eavg) was the figure of merit used to condense fluence in each energy bin to a single numerical index. RESULTS: Beam quality had the strongest influence on the scattered spectrum in fluoroscopy. Many procedural factors affect the scattered spectrum indirectly through their effect on primary beam quality through ADRC, e.g., gantry angle and patient size. Lateral C-arm rotation, common in IC, increased the energy of the scattered spectrum, regardless of the direction of rotation. The effect of patient size on scattered radiation depended on ADRC characteristics, patient size, and procedure type. CONCLUSIONS: The scattered spectrum striking the operator in fluoroscopy is most strongly influenced by primary beam quality, particularly kV. Use cases for protective garments should be classified by typical procedural primary beam qualities, which are governed by the ADRC according to the impacts of patient size, anatomical location, and gantry angle.

Application of the diagnostic radiological index of protection to protective garments.

PURPOSE: Previously, the diagnostic radiological index of protection (DRIP) was proposed as a metric for quantifying the protective value of radioprotective garments. The DRIP is a weighted sum of the percent transmissions of different radiation beams through a garment. Ideally, the beams would represent the anticipated stray radiation encountered during clinical use. However, it is impractical to expect a medical physicist to possess the equipment necessary to accurately measure transmission of scattered radiation. Therefore, as a proof of concept, the authors tested a method that applied the DRIP to clinical practice. METHODS: Primary beam qualities used in interventional cardiology and radiology were observed and catalogued. Based on the observed range of beam qualities, five representative clinical primary beam qualities, specified by kV and added filtration, were selected for this evaluation. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using these primary beams as source definitions to generate scattered spectra from the clinical primary beams. Using numerical optimization, ideal scatter mimicking primary beams, specified by kV and added aluminum filtration, were matched to the scattered spectra according to half- and quarter-value layers and spectral shape. To within reasonable approximation, these theoretical scatter-mimicking primary beams were reproduced experimentally in laboratory x ray beams and used to measure transmission through pure lead and protective garments. For this proof of concept, the DRIP for pure lead and the garments was calculated by assigning equal weighting to percent transmission measurements for each of the five beams. Finally, the areal density of lead and garments was measured for consideration alongside the DRIP to assess the protective value of each material for a given weight. RESULTS: The authors identified ideal scatter mimicking primary beams that matched scattered spectra to within 0.01 mm for half- and quarter-value layers in copper and within 5% for the shape function. The corresponding experimental scatter-mimicking primary beams matched the Monte Carlo generated scattered spectra with maximum deviations of 6.8% and 6.6% for half- and quarter-value layers. The measured DRIP for 0.50 mm lead sheet was 2.0, indicating that it transmitted, on average, 2% of incident radiation. The measured DRIP for a lead garment and one lead-alternative garment closely matched that for pure lead of 0.50 mm thickness. The DRIP for other garments was substantially higher than 0.50 mm lead (3.9-5.4), indicating they transmitted about twice as much radiation. When the DRIP was plotted versus areal density, it was clear that, of the garments tested, none were better than lead on a weight-by-weight basis. CONCLUSIONS: A method for measuring the DRIP for protective garments using scatter-mimicking primary beams was developed. There was little discernable advantage in protective value per unit weight for lead-alternative versus lead-only garments. Careful consideration must be given to the balance of protection and weight when choosing a lead-alternative protective garment with a lower specified "lead equivalence," e.g., 0.35 mm. The DRIP has the potential to resolve this dilemma. Reporting the DRIP relative to areal density is an ideal metric for objective comparisons of protective garment performance, considering both protective value in terms of transmission of radiation and garment weight.

Application of the diagnostic radiological index of protection to protective garments.

PURPOSE: Previously, the diagnostic radiological index of protection (DRIP) was proposed as a metric for quantifying the protective value of radioprotective garments. The DRIP is a weighted sum of the percent transmissions of different radiation beams through a garment. Ideally, the beams would represent the anticipated stray radiation encountered during clinical use. However, it is impractical to expect a medical physicist to possess the equipment necessary to accurately measure transmission of scatteredradiation. Therefore, as a proof of concept, the authors tested a method that applied the DRIP to clinical practice. METHODS: Primary beam qualities used in interventional cardiology and radiology were observed and catalogued. Based on the observed range of beam qualities, five representative clinical primary beam qualities, specified by kV and added filtration, were selected for this evaluation. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using these primary beams as source definitions to generate scatteredspectra from the clinical primary beams. Using numerical optimization, ideal scatter mimicking primary beams, specified by kV and added aluminum filtration, were matched to the scatteredspectra according to half- and quarter-value layers and spectral shape. To within reasonable approximation, these theoretical scatter-mimicking primary beams were reproduced experimentally in laboratory x ray beams and used to measure transmission through pure lead and protective garments. For this proof of concept, the DRIP for pure lead and the garments was calculated by assigning equal weighting to percent transmission measurements for each of the five beams. Finally, the areal density of lead and garments was measured for consideration alongside the DRIP to assess the protective value of each material for a given weight. RESULTS: The authors identified ideal scatter mimicking primary beams that matched scatteredspectra to within 0.01 mm for half- and quarter-value layers in copper and within 5% for the shape function. The corresponding experimental scatter-mimicking primary beams matched the Monte Carlo generated scatteredspectra with maximum deviations of 6.8% and 6.6% for half- and quarter-value layers. The measured DRIP for 0.50 mm lead sheet was 2.0, indicating that it transmitted, on average, 2% of incident radiation. The measured DRIP for a lead garment and one lead-alternative garment closely matched that for pure lead of 0.50 mm thickness. The DRIP for other garments was substantially higher than 0.50 mm lead (3.9­5.4), indicating they transmitted about twice as much radiation. When the DRIP was plotted versus areal density, it was clear that, of the garments tested, none were better than lead on a weight-by-weight basis. CONCLUSIONS: A method for measuring the DRIP for protective garments using scatter-mimicking primary beams was developed. There was little discernable advantage in protective value per unit weight for lead-alternative versus lead-only garments. Careful consideration must be given to the balance of protection and weight when choosing a lead-alternative protective garment with a lower specified "lead equivalence," e.g., 0.35 mm. The DRIP has the potential to resolve this dilemma. Reporting the DRIP relative to areal density is an ideal metric for objective comparisons of protective garment performance, considering both protective value in terms of transmission of radiation and garment weight.