Patient Exposure from Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures in the United States: Procedure Volume and Effective Dose for the Period 2006-2016.

Background Comprehensive assessments of the frequency and associated doses from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures are rarely conducted. The use of these procedures and the population-based radiation dose increased remarkably from 1980 to 2006. Purpose To determine the change in per capita radiation exposure in the United States from 2006 to 2016. Materials and Methods The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements conducted a retrospective assessment for 2016 and compared the results to previously published data for the year 2006. Effective dose values for procedures were obtained from the literature, and frequency data were obtained from commercial, governmental, and professional society data. Results In the United States in 2006, an estimated 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations were performed. This value remained essentially the same for 2016 even though the U.S. population had increased by about 24 million people. The number of CT scans performed increased from 67 million to 84 million, but the number of other procedures (eg, diagnostic fluoroscopy) and nuclear medicine procedures decreased from 17 million to 13.5 million. The number of dental radiographic and dental CT examinations performed was estimated to be about 320 million in 2016. Using the tissue-weighting factors from Publication 60 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the U.S. annual individual (per capita) effective dose from diagnostic and interventional medical procedures was estimated to have been 2.9 mSv in 2006 and 2.3 mSv in 2016, with the collective doses being 885 000 and 755 000 person-sievert, respectively. Conclusion The trend from 1980 to 2006 of increasing dose from medical radiation has reversed. Estimated 2016 total collective effective dose and radiation dose per capita dose are lower than in 2006. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Einstein in this issue.

Assessing cardiovascular risk in the prerenal transplant population: Comparison of myocardial perfusion imaging and coronary angiography with risk factor stratification.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have a higher incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD). Hence, it is crucial to evaluate CAD before renal transplantation. This study compares the utility of pharmacologic single-photon emission computed-tomography (SPECT) imaging directly to coronary angiography for diagnosis of CAD with correlation to cardiovascular risk factors. METHOD: Retrospective review of asymptomatic renal failure patients who underwent both SPECT and coronary angiography to identify obstructive CAD between the years 2008-2016. Ninety-four ESRD subjects were evaluated. RESULTS: Myocardial perfusion SPECT study found, when compared to coronary angiography demonstrated for CAD, the sensitivity of 93.3% with a specificity of 73.4%. Importantly, the negative predictive value for coronary artery disease was 96%. With seven or more cardiac risk factors, 66.7% of patients had obstructive coronary artery disease. Among all the risk factors examined, patients with a previous history of coronary artery disease had a 68% risk of obstructive coronary artery disease. CONCLUSION: Comparing myocardial perfusion imaging SPECT findings with coronary angiography in patients with ESRD, a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 73% were observed. Of all the risk factors examined, patient with the previous history of CAD was the single most significant risk factor for CAD in 68% of cases.

Reducing radiation dose: Equipment, procedure, and operator Perfecting the Trifecta.

This article illustrates the positive impact of fluoroscopic imaging equipment on radiation dose reduction in CTO PCI. The reader should recognize the importance of purchasing and maintaining the best equipment, understanding procedure/patient complexity, and assuring operator training in radiation dose reduction. Future efforts/studies should focus upon all three areas of dose reduction for best results.

Real time patient dosimetry in the cath lab: Can you see what they get?

Real time radiation dose monitoring in the cath lab may provide immediate feedback for potential dose reduction during PCI. Radiation dose monitoring to predict potential tissue injury utilizes equipment measured air Kerma at the interventional reference point (IRP) with then calculated specific tissue peak skin dose. The role of the cath lab Quality Committee is not only to assess individual high dose radiation cases but also to create processes and assess new technologies to assure radiation dose is best utilized in all cases.

Radiation-associated lens changes in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Results from the IC-CATARACT (CATaracts Attributed to RAdiation in the CaTh lab) study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and the prevalence of lens changes in interventional cardiologists (ICs) and catheterization laboratory ("cath-lab") staff. BACKGROUND: Exposure to ionizing radiation is associated with the development of lens opacities. ICs and cath-lab staff can receive high doses of ionizing radiation without protection, and may thus be at risk for lens opacity formation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study at an interventional cardiology conference. Study participants completed a questionnaire pertaining to occupational exposure to radiation and potential confounders for the development of cataracts, followed by slit-lamp examination and grading of lens findings. RESULTS: A total of 117 attendees participated in the study, including 99 (85%; 49 ± 11 years-old; 82% male) with occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and 18 (15%; 39 ± 12 years-old; 61% male) unexposed controls. The prevalence of overall cortical and posterior subcapsular lens changes (including subclinical findings) was higher in exposed participants compared with controls (47 vs. 17%, P = 0.015). Occupational exposure and age over 60 were independent predictors of lens changes (odds ratio [95% CI]: 6.07 [1.38-43.45] and 7.72 [1.60-43.34], respectively). The prevalence of frank opacities was low and similar between the two groups (14 vs. 6%, P = 0.461). Most lens findings consisted of subclinical changes in the periphery of the lens without impact on visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with unexposed controls, ICs and cath-lab staff had a higher prevalence of lens changes that may be attributable to ionizing radiation exposure. While most of these changes were subclinical, they are important due to the potential to progress to clinical symptoms, highlighting the importance of minimizing staff radiation exposure.

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.

Fluoroscopy pulse rate reduction during diagnostic and therapeutic imaging in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: An evaluation of radiation dose, procedure complications and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate radiation reduction by reducing fluoroscopy pulse rate in diagnostic cardiac catheterizations and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) as well as outcomes at 30 days and six months. BACKGROUND: Radiation exposure to the public at large has increased dramatically over the past three decades, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory is a large contributor. Fluoroscopy pulse rate is one way to decrease radiation exposure. METHODS: Fluoroscopy pulse rate was reduced from 10 pulses/sec (p/s) to 7.5 p/s as part of an internal quality improvement project. A retrospective analysis of all cardiac catheterizations was performed, evaluating Air KERMA at the interventional reference point (Ka, r ), Air KERMA area product (PKA ), procedural complications and major adverse cardiac events at 30 days and 6 months. RESULTS: In diagnostic catheterization median PKA (µGy·m2 ) and Ka,r (mGy) were significantly reduced (PKA - 5,613.3 vs. 4,400, P < 0.001; Ka,r - 703.0 vs. 621.0, P = 0.041). In PCI, median PKA and Ka,r were further reduced (PKA - 13,481.6 vs. 10,648.0, P < 0.001; Ka,r - 1787.0 vs. 1,459.0, P = 0.002). There was no difference in complications, fluoroscopy time or number of stents placed. There was no difference in MACE after adjustment for number of STEMIs. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing fluoroscopy pulse rates to 7.5 from 10 is an effective way to reduce patient radiation exposure across meaningful dose indices. A pulse rate of 7.5 p/s is safe, with no difference in complications or outcomes. A fluoroscopy pulse rate of 7.5 p/s should be given strong consideration for a new standard. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Determinants of operator and patient radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization: Insights from the RadiCure (RADIation reduction during cardiac catheterization using real-timE monitoring) trial.

BACKGROUND: In the RadiCure study 505 catheterization procedures were 1:1 randomized to use or no use of real-time radiation monitoring. Use of the Bleeper Sv monitor resulted in a significant reduction in operator radiation exposure. METHODS: We examined the association between several baseline and procedural parameters with operator and patient radiation exposure using univariable and multivariable analysis in the 505 patients that were enrolled in RadiCure. All baseline demographic and procedure characteristics recorded were included in the univariable analysis. RESULTS: Median fluoroscopy time was 6.2 (2.5-12.5) minutes, median patient air kerma dose was 0.908 (0.602-1.636) Gray and median first operator exposure was 10 (5-22) µSv. For analysis purposes, the 505 procedures were dichotomized based on the median operator exposure (10 µSv) and median patient radiation dose (0.908 Gray). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with high (above median or >10 µSv) first operator radiation exposure included radial access (odds ratio [OR] 5.44, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.88-10.76), chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention (OR 12.78, 95% CI 4.42-43.60), real-time radiation monitoring (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.66), and use of a radioabsorbent drape (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-0.96). High patient radiation dose (above median or >0.908 Gray) was associated with body mass index>30 kg/m2 (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.99-5.29), prior MI (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.29-4.04), prior cerebrovascular disease (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.75), hypertension (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.05-5.82), prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.40-4.39) and CTO intervention (OR 12.93, 95% CI 3.28-87.31), but was not associated with real-time radiation monitoring and use of a radioabsorbent drape. CONCLUSIONS: Several clinical and procedural factors are associated with higher patient and operator radiation exposure. Real-time radiation monitoring and use of disposable radiation shields were associated with lower operator, but not patient, radiation dose. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Optimizing Radiation Safety in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Practical Approach.

Reducing radiation exposure during cardiovascular catheterization is of paramount importance for both patient and staff safety. Over the years, advances in equipment and application of radiation safety protocols have significantly reduced patient dose and operator exposure. This review examines the current status of radiation protection in the cardiac and vascular catheterization laboratory and summarizes best practices for minimizing radiation exposure.

Radiation dose variation in fluoroscopic imaging: Is What You Get, What You See?

Variations in dose exist amongst various imaging systems and in various acquisition angulations; this is not a new finding. Assessment of Image quality should accompany an assessment of dose, as these complement each other. Routine assessment of dose and image quality with potential comparisons amongst operators, laboratories, and imaging systems may prove beneficial for radiation safety in interventional cardiology practice.

Effect of percutaneous coronary intervention on quality of life: a consensus statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decreases ischemic complications of acute coronary syndromes. The benefits of PCI in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) depend on its effect on quality of life (QoL), including angina, physical activity, and emotional well-being. PCI decreases angina and the need for anti-anginal medications, and increases exercise capacity and QoL, compared with baseline status and compared with medical therapy without PCI. These benefits are greater when QOL is markedly impaired by severe angina before the procedure. When considering treatment options for symptomatic SIHD, physicians should consider and provide objective data regarding QoL effects for each treatment strategy. QoL outcomes should be considered in clinical trials, appropriate use criteria, practice guidelines, and reimbursement policies for PCI.

Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) may be performed during the same session as diagnostic catheterization (ad hoc PCI) or at a later session (delayed PCI). Randomized trials comparing these strategies have not been performed; cohort studies have not identified consistent differences in safety or efficacy between the two strategies. Ad hoc PCI has increased in prevalence over the past decade and is the default strategy for treating acute coronary syndromes. However, questions about its appropriateness for some patients with stable symptoms have been raised by the results of recent large trials comparing PCI to medical therapy or bypass surgery. Ad hoc PCI for stable ischemic heart disease requires preprocedural planning, and reassessment after diagnostic angiography must be performed to ensure its appropriateness. Patients may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is convenient. Payers may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is cost-efficient. The majority of data confirm equivalent outcomes in ad hoc versus delayed PCI. However, there are some situations in which delayed PCI may be safer or yield better outcomes. This document reviews patient subsets and clinical situations in which one strategy is preferable over the other.

ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions American Association for Thoracic Surgery American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Heart Failure Society of America Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions present a practical approach to assist cardiac catheterization laboratories in establishing a radiation safety program. The importance of this program is emphasized by the appropriate concerns for the increasing use of ionizing radiation in medical imaging, and its potential adverse effects. An overview of the assessment of radiation dose is provided with a review of basic terminology for dose management. The components of a radiation safety program include essential personnel, radiation monitoring, protective shielding, imaging equipment, and training/education. A procedure based review of radiation dose management is described including pre-procedure, procedure and post-procedure best practice recommendations. Specific radiation safety considerations are discussed including women and fluoroscopic procedures as well as patients with congenital and structural heart disease.