Occupational Radiation Dose Trends in U.S. Radiologic Technologists Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures, 1980-2020.

PURPOSE: To summarize dose trends from 1980 to 2020 for 19,651 U.S. Radiologic Technologists who reported assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIPs), overall and by work history characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 762,310 annual personal dose equivalents at a 10-mm reference depth (doses) during 1980-2020 for 43,823 participants of the U.S. Radiologic Technologists (USRT) cohort who responded to work history questionnaires administered during 2012-2014 were summarized. This population included 19,651 technologists who reported assisting with FGIP (≥1 time per month for ≥12 consecutive months) at any time during the study period. Doses corresponding to assistance with FGIP were estimated in terms of proximity to patients, monthly procedure frequency, and procedure type. Box plots and summary statistics (eg, medians and percentiles) were used to describe annual doses and dose trends. RESULTS: Median annual dose corresponding to assistance with FGIP was 0.65 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 0.60-1.40 mSv; 95th percentile, 6.80). Higher occupational doses with wider variability were associated with close proximity to patients during assistance with FGIP (median, 1.20 mSv [IQR, 0.60-4.18 mSv]; 95th percentile, 12.66), performing ≥20 FGIPs per month (median, 0.75 mSv [IQR, 0.60-2.40 mSv]; 95th percentile, 9.44), and assisting with high-dose FGIP (median, 0.70 mSv [IQR, 0.60-1.90 mSv]; 95th percentile, 8.30). CONCLUSIONS: Occupational doses corresponding to assistance with FGIP were generally low but varied with exposure frequency, procedure type, and proximity to patients. These results highlight the need for vigilant dose monitoring, radiation safety training, and proper protective equipment.

NCRP commentary no. 33-recommendations for stratification of equipment use and radiation safety training for fluoroscopy.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Commentary No. 33 'Recommendations for Stratification of Equipment Use and Radiation Safety Training for Fluoroscopy' defines an evidence-based, radiation risk classification for fluoroscopically guided procedures (FGPs), provides radiation-related recommendations for the types of fluoroscopes suitable for each class of procedure, and indicates the extent and content of training that ought to be provided to different categories of facility staff who might enter a room where fluoroscopy is or may be performed. For FGP, radiation risk is defined by the type and likelihood of radiation hazards that could be incurred by a patient undergoing a FGP. The Commentary also defines six training groups of facility staff based on their role in the fluoroscopy room. The training groups are based on a combination of job descriptions and the procedures in which these individuals might be involved. The Commentary recommends the extent and content of training that should be provided to each of these training groups. It also provides recommendations on training formats, training frequency, and methods for demonstrating that the learner has acquired the necessary knowledge.

Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Procedures: Comparison of Fluoroscopy Dose Indices between the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot and the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Study.

PURPOSE: To compare radiation dose index distributions for fluoroscopically guided interventions in interventional radiology from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Fluoroscopy Dose Index Registry (DIR-Fluoro) pilot to those from the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology (RAD-IR) study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual and grouped ACR Common identification numbers (procedure types) from the DIR-Fluoro pilot were matched to procedure types in the RAD-IR study. Fifteen comparisons were made. Distribution parameters, including the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles, were compared for fluoroscopy time (FT), cumulative air kerma (Ka,r), and kerma area product (PKA). Two derived indices were computed using median dose indices. The procedure-averaged reference air kerma rate (Ka,r¯) was computed as Ka,r / FT. The procedure-averaged x-ray field size at the reference point (Ar) was computed as PKA / (Ka,r × 1,000). RESULTS: The median FT was equally likely to be higher or lower in the DIR-Fluoro pilot as it was in the RAD-IR study, whereas the maximum FT was almost twice as likely to be higher in the DIR-Fluoro pilot than it was in the RAD-IR study. The median Ka,r was lower in the DIR-Fluoro pilot for all procedures, as was median PKA. The maximum Ka,r and PKA were more often higher in the DIR-Fluoro pilot than in the RAD-IR study. Ka,r¯ followed the same pattern as Ka,r, whereas Ar was often greater in DIR-Fluoro. CONCLUSIONS: The median dose indices have decreased since the RAD-IR study. The typical Ka,r rates are lower, a result of the use of lower default dose rates. However, opportunities for quality improvement exist, including renewed focus on tight collimation of the imaging field of view.

Patient Radiation Doses in IR Procedures: The American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot.

PURPOSE: To update normative data on fluoroscopy dose indices in the United States for the first time since the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology study in the late 1990s. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy pilot study collected data from March 2018 through December 2019, with 50 fluoroscopes from 10 sites submitting data. Primary radiation dose indices including fluoroscopy time (FT), cumulative air kerma (Ka,r), and kerma area product (PKA) were collected for interventional radiology fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures. Clinical facility procedure names were mapped to the American College of Radiology (ACR) common procedure lexicon. Distribution parameters including the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 95th, and 99th percentiles were computed. RESULTS: Dose indices were collected for 70,377 FGI procedures, with 50,501 ultimately eligible for analysis. Distribution parameters are reported for 100 ACR Common IDs. FT in minutes, Ka,r in mGy, and PKA in Gy-cm2 are reported in this study as (n; median) for select ACR Common IDs: inferior vena cava filter insertion (1,726; FT: 2.9; Ka,r: 55.8; PKA: 14.19); inferior vena cava filter removal (464; FT: 5.7; Ka,r: 178.6; PKA: 34.73); nephrostomy placement (2,037; FT: 4.1; Ka,r: 39.2; PKA: 6.61); percutaneous biliary drainage (952; FT: 12.4; Ka,r: 160.5; PKA: 21.32); gastrostomy placement (1,643; FT: 3.2; Ka,r: 29.1; PKA: 7.29); and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement (327; FT: 34.8; Ka,r: 813.0; PKA: 181.47). CONCLUSIONS: The ACR DIR-Fluoro pilot has provided state-of-the-practice statistics for radiation dose indices from IR FGI procedures. These data can be used to prioritize procedures for radiation optimization, as demonstrated in this work.

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.

Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures.

The 600% increase in medical radiation exposure to the US population since 1980 has provided immense benefit, but increased potential future cancer risks to patients. Most of the increase is from diagnostic radiologic procedures. The objectives of this review are to summarize epidemiologic data on cancer risks associated with diagnostic procedures, describe how exposures from recent diagnostic procedures relate to radiation levels linked with cancer occurrence, and propose a framework of strategies to reduce radiation from diagnostic imaging in patients. We briefly review radiation dose definitions, mechanisms of radiation carcinogenesis, key epidemiologic studies of medical and other radiation sources and cancer risks, and dose trends from diagnostic procedures. We describe cancer risks from experimental studies, future projected risks from current imaging procedures, and the potential for higher risks in genetically susceptible populations. To reduce future projected cancers from diagnostic procedures, we advocate the widespread use of evidence-based appropriateness criteria for decisions about imaging procedures; oversight of equipment to deliver reliably the minimum radiation required to attain clinical objectives; development of electronic lifetime records of imaging procedures for patients and their physicians; and commitment by medical training programs, professional societies, and radiation protection organizations to educate all stakeholders in reducing radiation from diagnostic procedures.

Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess radiation exposure-related work history and risk of cataract and cataract surgery among radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP). METHODS: This retrospective study included 35 751 radiologic technologists who reported being cataract-free at baseline (1994-1998) and completed a follow-up questionnaire (2013-2014). Frequencies of assisting with 21 types of FGIP and use of radiation protection equipment during five time periods (before 1970, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009) were derived from an additional self-administered questionnaire in 2013-2014. Multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for self-reported cataract diagnosis and cataract surgery were estimated according to FGIP work history. RESULTS: During follow-up, 9372 technologists reported incident physician-diagnosed cataract; 4278 of incident cases reported undergoing cataract surgery. Technologists who ever assisted with FGIP had increased risk for cataract compared with those who never assisted with FGIP (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.25). Risk increased with increasing cumulative number of FGIP; the RR for technologists who assisted with >5000 FGIP compared with those who never assisted was 1.38 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.53; p trend <0.001). These associations were more pronounced for FGIP when technologists were located ≤3 feet (≤0.9 m) from the patient compared with >3 feet (>0.9 m) (RRs for >5000 at ≤3 feet vs never FGIP were 1.48, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.74 and 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, respectively; pdifference=0.04). Similar risks, although not statistically significant, were observed for cataract surgery. CONCLUSION: Technologists who reported assisting with FGIP, particularly high-volume FGIP within 3 feet of the patient, had increased risk of incident cataract. Additional investigation should evaluate estimated dose response and medically validated cataract type.

Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: Time for a safer environment.

Over the past 30 years, the advent of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures has resulted in dramatic increments in both X-ray exposure and physical demands that predispose interventionists to distinct occupational health hazards. The hazards of accumulated radiation exposure have been known for years, but until recently the other potential risks have been ill-defined and under-appreciated. The physical stresses inherent in this career choice appear to be associated with a predilection to orthopedic injuries, attributable in great part to the cumulative adverse effects of bearing the weight and design of personal protective apparel worn to reduce radiation risk and to the poor ergonomic design of interventional suites. These occupational health concerns pertain to cardiologists, radiologists and surgeons working with fluoroscopy, pain management specialists performing nonvascular fluoroscopic procedures, and the many support personnel working in these environments. This position paper is the work of representatives of the major societies of physicians who work in the interventional laboratory environment, and has been formally endorsed by all. In this paper, the available data delineating the prevalence of these occupational health risks is reviewed and ongoing epidemiological studies designed to further elucidate these risks are summarized. The main purpose is to publicly state speaking with a single voice that the interventional laboratory poses workplace hazards that must be acknowledged, better understood and mitigated to the greatest extent possible, and to advocate vigorously on behalf of efforts to reduce these hazards. Interventional physicians and their professional societies, working together with industry, should strive toward the ultimate zero radiation exposure work environment that would eliminate the need for personal protective apparel and prevent its orthopedic and ergonomic consequences. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Mortality in U.S. Physicians Likely to Perform Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures Compared with Psychiatrists, 1979 to 2008.

Purpose To compare total and cause-specific mortality rates between physicians likely to have performed fluoroscopy-guided interventional (FGI) procedures (referred to as FGI MDs) and psychiatrists to determine if any differences are consistent with known radiation risks. Materials and Methods Mortality risks were compared in nationwide cohorts of 45 634 FGI MDs and 64 401 psychiatrists. Cause of death was ascertained from the National Death Index. Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for FGI MDs versus psychiatrists, with adjustment (via stratification) for year of birth and attained age. Results During follow-up (1979-2008), 3506 FGI MDs (86 women) and 7814 psychiatrists (507 women) died. Compared with psychiatrists, FGI MDs had lower total (men: RR, 0.80 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.83]; women: RR, 0.80 [95% CI: 0.63, 1.00]) and cancer (men: RR, 0.92 [95% CI: 0.85, 0.99]; women: RR, 0.83 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.18]) mortality. Mortality because of specific types of cancer, total and specific types of circulatory diseases, and other causes were not elevated in FGI MDs compared with psychiatrists. On the basis of small numbers, leukemia mortality was elevated among male FGI MDs who graduated from medical school before 1940 (RR, 3.86; 95% CI: 1.21, 12.3). Conclusion Overall, total deaths and deaths from specific causes were not elevated in FGI MDs compared with psychiatrists. These findings require confirmation in large cohort studies with individual doses, detailed work histories, and extended follow-up of the subjects to substantially older median age at exit. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Occupational Radiation Exposure and Deaths From Malignant Intracranial Neoplasms of the Brain and CNS in U.S. Radiologic Technologists, 1983-2012.

OBJECTIVE: Childhood exposure to acute, high-dose radiation has consistently been associated with risk of benign and malignant intracranial tumors of the brain and CNS, but data on risks of adulthood exposure to protracted, low-to-moderate doses of radiation are limited. In a large cohort of radiologic technologists, we quantified the association between protracted, low-to-moderate doses of radiation and malignant intracranial tumor mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 83,655 female and 26,642 male U.S. radiologic technologists who were certified for at least 2 years as of 1982. The cohort was followed from the completion date of the first or second survey (1983-1989 or 1994-1998) to the date of death, loss to follow-up, or December 31, 2012, whichever was earliest. Occupational brain doses through 1997 were based on work history, historical data, and, for most years after the mid 1970s, individual film badge measurements. Radiation-related excess relative risks (ERRs) and 95% CIs were estimated from Poisson regression models adjusted for attained age and sex. RESULTS: Cumulative mean absorbed brain dose was 12 mGy (range, 0-290 mGy). During follow-up (median, 26.7 years), 193 technologists died of a malignant intracranial neoplasm. Based on models incorporating a 5-year lagged cumulative brain dose, cumulative brain dose was not associated with malignant intracranial tumor mortality (overall ERR per 100 mGy, 0.1; 95% CI, < -0.3 to 1.5). No effect modification was observed by sex or birth cohort. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide cohort of radiologic technologists, cumulative occupational radiation exposure to the brain was not associated with malignant intracranial tumor mortality.

Long-term Mortality in 43 763 U.S. Radiologists Compared with 64 990 U.S. Psychiatrists.

Purpose To compare mortality rates from all causes, specific causes, total cancers, and specific cancers to assess whether differences between radiologists and psychiatrists are consistent with known risks of radiation exposure and the changes in radiation exposure to radiologists over time. Materials and Methods The authors used the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to construct a cohort of 43 763 radiologists (20% women) and 64 990 psychiatrists (27% women) (comparison group) who graduated from medical school in 1916-2006. Vital status was obtained from record linkages with the Social Security Administration and commercial databases, and cause of death was obtained from the National Death Index. Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all causes and specific causes of death. Results During the follow-up period (1979-2008), 4260 male radiologists and 7815 male psychiatrists died. The male radiologists had lower death rates (all causes) compared with the psychiatrists (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.97), similar cancer death rates overall (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.07), but increased acute myeloid leukemia and/or myelodysplastic syndrome death rates (RR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.50); these rates were driven by those who graduated before 1940 (RR = 4.68; 95% CI: 0.91, 24.18). In these earliest workers (before 1940) there were also increased death rates from melanoma (RR = 8.75; 95% CI: 1.89, 40.53), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) (RR = 2.69; 95% CI: 1.33, 5.45), and cerebrovascular disease (RR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.01). The 208 deaths in female radiologists precluded detailed investigation, and the number of female radiologists who graduated before 1940 was very small (n = 47). Conclusion The excess risk of acute myeloid leukemia and/or myelodysplastic syndrome mortality in radiologists who graduated before 1940 is likely due to occupational radiation exposure. The melanoma, NHL, and cerebrovascular disease mortality risks are possibly due to radiation. The authors found no evidence of excess mortality in radiologists who graduated more recently, possibly because of increased radiation protection and/or lifestyle changes. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Changing Patterns in the Performance of Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures and Adherence to Radiation Safety Practices in a U.S. Cohort of Radiologic Technologists.

OBJECTIVE: Information is limited on changes over time in the types of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and associated radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study included 12,571 U.S. radiologic technologists who were certified for at least 2 years in 1926-1982 and who reported in a 2012-2013 survey that they ever performed or assisted with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. They completed a mailed questionnaire in 2013-2014 describing their detailed work practices for 21 fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures and associated radiation safety practices from the 1950s through 2009. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of technologists who reported working with therapeutic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including percutaneous coronary interventions, increased over time, whereas the proportion of technologists who worked with diagnostic fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, including diagnostic cardiovascular catheterization and neuroangiographic procedures, decreased. We also observed substantial increases in the median number of times per month that technologists worked with diagnostic cardiovascular catheterizations and percutaneous coronary interventions. In each time period, most technologists reported consistently (≥ 75% of work time) wearing radiation monitoring badges and lead aprons during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. However, fewer than 50% of the technologists reported consistent use of thyroid shields, lead glasses, and room shields during fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, even in more recent time periods. CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed historical assessment of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures performed and radiation safety practices used by radiologic technologists from the 1950s through 2009. Results can be used in conjunction with badge dose data to estimate organ radiation dose for studies of radiation-related health risks in radiologic technologists who have worked with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures.

Cancer Risks in U.S. Radiologic Technologists Working With Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures, 1994-2008.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine risks of cancer incidence and mortality among U.S. radiation technologists performing or assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A nationwide prospective cohort of 90,957 radiologic technologists, who responded to a 1994-1998 survey that collected information on whether they had ever worked with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, was followed through completion of a subsequent cohort survey during 2003-2005 (for cancer incidence) or December 31, 2008 (for cancer mortality). Sex-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated by use of Cox proportional hazards models for incidence and mortality from all cancers other than nonmelanoma skin cancer and for specific cancer outcomes in participants who reported ever performing fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures compared with technologists who never performed these procedures. RESULTS: The analysis showed an approximately twofold increased risk of brain cancer mortality (HR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.48-4.40) and modest elevations in incidence of melanoma (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.05-1.61) and in breast cancer incidence (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32) but not mortality (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.69-1.66) among technologists who performed fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures compared with those who never performed these procedures. Although there was a small suggestive increase in incidence of all cancers combined, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17), mortality from all cancers combined, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers, was not elevated (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.14). We similarly observed no elevated risk of cancers of the thyroid, skin other than melanoma, prostate, lung, or colon and rectum or of leukemia that was not chronic lymphocytic leukemia among workers who performed fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. CONCLUSION: We observed elevated risks of brain cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma among technologists who performed fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Although exposure to low-dose radiation is one possible explanation for these increased risks, these results may also be due to chance or unmeasured confounding by nonradiation risk factors. Our results must be confirmed in other studies, preferably with individual radiation dose data.

Incidence and mortality risks for circulatory diseases in US radiologic technologists who worked with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, 1994-2008.

OBJECTIVES: Although fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP) have provided major advances in the treatment of various common diseases, radiation exposures associated with these procedures may cause adverse health effects in workers. We assess risk of circulatory disease incidence and mortality in medical radiation workers performing FGIP. METHODS: A US nationwide prospective cohort study of 90,957 radiologic technologists who completed a cohort survey during 1994-1998 was followed until completion of a subsequent survey during 2003-2005 for circulatory disease incidence, or until 31 December 2008 for mortality. Incidence analyses were restricted to the 63,482 technologists who completed both the second survey (1994-1998) and the third survey (2003-2005). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess adjusted HR and 95% CIs for mortality from all causes, all circulatory diseases, all heart diseases, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, acute myocardial infarction and hypertension in participants who reported ever performing FGIP compared to technologists who never performed FGIP procedures. Adjusted HRs were calculated for self-reported hypertension, stroke and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: We observed a 34% increase in stroke incidence (HR=1.34, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.64) in technologists who performed FGIP compared to those who never performed these procedures. Mortality from stroke was also modestly elevated, although not statistically significant (HR=1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.73). We observed no statistically significant excess risks of incidence or mortality from any other outcome evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding of elevated risk of stroke in workers performing FGIP needs to be confirmed in studies with individual radiation dose data, but nonetheless underlines the need to keep radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable without compromising key diagnostic information.

Patient skin reactions from interventional fluoroscopy procedures.

OBJECTIVE: This article presents relevant physics, technology, and radiobiology along with a summary of operational guidelines for radiation management in interventional fluoroscopy procedures. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures offer patients clinical and economic benefits as compared with the alternatives. Radiation-induced skin injuries are uncommon but continue to occur.

Recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology.

The radiation dose received by cardiologists during percutaneous coronary interventions, electrophysiology procedures and other interventional cardiology procedures can vary by more than an order of magnitude for the same type of procedure and for similar patient doses. There is particular concern regarding occupational dose to the lens of the eye. This document provides recommendations for occupational radiation protection for physicians and other staff in the interventional suite. Simple methods for reducing or minimizing occupational radiation dose include: minimizing fluoroscopy time and the number of acquired images; using available patient dose reduction technologies; using good imaging-chain geometry; collimating; avoiding high-scatter areas; using protective shielding; using imaging equipment whose performance is controlled through a quality assurance programme; and wearing personal dosimeters so that you know your dose. Effective use of these methods requires both appropriate education and training in radiation protection for all interventional cardiology personnel, and the availability of appropriate protective tools and equipment. Regular review and investigation of personnel monitoring results, accompanied as appropriate by changes in how procedures are performed and equipment used, will ensure continual improvement in the practice of radiation protection in the interventional suite. These recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology and electrophysiology have been endorsed by the Asian Pacific Society of Interventional Cardiology, the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the Latin American Society of Interventional Cardiology, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

A summary of recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology.

The radiation dose received by cardiologists during percutaneous coronary interventions, electrophysiology procedures, and other interventional cardiology procedures can vary by more than an order of magnitude for the same type of procedure and for similar patient doses. There is particular concern regarding occupational dose to the lens of the eye. This document provides recommendations for occupational radiation protection for physicians and other staff in the interventional suite. Simple methods for reducing or minimizing occupational radiation dose include minimizing fluoroscopy time and the number of acquired images; using available patient dose reduction technologies; using good imaging-chain geometry; collimating; avoiding high-scatter areas; using protective shielding; using imaging equipment whose performance is controlled through a quality assurance program; and wearing personal dosimeters so that you know your dose. Effective use of these methods requires both appropriate education and training in radiation protection for all interventional cardiology personnel, and the availability of appropriate protective tools and equipment. Regular review and investigation of personnel monitoring results, accompanied as appropriate by changes in how procedures are performed and equipment used, will ensure continual improvement in the practice of radiation protection in the interventional suite. These recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology and electrophysiology have been endorsed by the Asian Pacific Society of Interventional Cardiology, the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the Latin American Society of Interventional Cardiology, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology in the U.S.: advisory data sets and possible initial values for U.S. reference levels.

PURPOSE: To determine patient radiation doses from interventional cardiology procedures in the U.S and to suggest possible initial values for U.S. benchmarks for patient radiation dose from selected interventional cardiology procedures [fluoroscopically guided diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)]. METHODS: Patient radiation dose metrics were derived from analysis of data from the 2008 to 2009 Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends (NEXT) survey of cardiac catheterization. This analysis used identified data and did not require review by an IRB. Data from 171 facilities in 30 states were analyzed. The distributions (percentiles) of radiation dose metrics were determined for diagnostic cardiac catheterizations, PCI, and combined diagnostic and PCI procedures. Confidence intervals for these dose distributions were determined using bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: Percentile distributions (advisory data sets) and possible preliminary U.S. reference levels (based on the 75th percentile of the dose distributions) are provided for cumulative air kerma at the reference point (K(a,r)), cumulative air kerma-area product (P(KA)), fluoroscopy time, and number of cine runs. Dose distributions are sufficiently detailed to permit dose audits as described in National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 168. Fluoroscopy times are consistent with those observed in European studies, but P(KA) is higher in the U.S. CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient data exist to suggest possible initial benchmarks for patient radiation dose for certain interventional cardiology procedures in the U.S. Our data suggest that patient radiation dose in these procedures is not optimized in U.S. practice.