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.

Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

Collar Badge Lens Dose Equivalent Values among United States Physicians Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.

PURPOSE: To describe the range of occupational badge dose readings and annualized dose records among physicians performing fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures using job title information provided by the same 3 major medical institutions in 2009, 2012, and 2015. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Radiation Safety Office of selected hospitals was contacted to request assistance with identifying physicians in a large commercial dosimetry database. All entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedure staff were excluded. Monthly and annualized doses were described with univariate statistics and box-and-whisker plots. RESULTS: The dosimetry data set of interventional radiology staff contained 169 annual dose records from 77 different physicians and 698 annual dose records from 455 nonphysicians. The median annualized lens dose equivalent values among physicians (11.9 mSv; interquartile range [IQR], 6.9-20.0 mSv) was nearly 3-fold higher than those among nonphysician medical staff assisting with FGI procedures (4.0 mSv; IQR, 1.8-6.7 mSv) (P < .001). During the study period, without eye protection, 25% (23 of 93) of the physician annualized lens dose equivalent values may have exceeded 20 mSv; for nonphysician medical staff, this value may have been exceeded 3.5% (6 of 173) of the time. However, these values did not account for eye protection. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study highlight the importance of mitigating occupational dose to the eyes of medical staff, particularly physicians, performing or assisting with FGI procedures. Training on radiation protection principles, the use of personal protective equipment, and patient radiation dose management can all help ensure that the occupational radiation dose is adequately controlled.

Occupational Doses to Medical Staff Performing or Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.

Background Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-exposed groups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff performing or assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retrospectively collected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corresponding to years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (P = .96) or those who wore two badges (P = .23). Annual lens dose equivalents for workers wearing one badge (median, 6.9 mSv; interquartile range, 3.8213.8 mSv; n = 6218) were similar to those of staff wearing two badges (median, 7.1 mSv; interquartile range, 4.6-11.2 mSv; n = 1449) (P = .18), suggesting a similar radiation environment. Conclusion These workers are among the highest exposed to elevated levels of ionizing radiation, although their occupational doses are within U.S. regulatory limits. This is a population that requires consistent and accurate dose monitoring; however, failure to return one or both badges, reversal of badges, and improper badge placement are a major hindrance to this goal. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Karellas in this issue.

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.

Caution: Predictors ahead.

Radiation dose data can be used as a starting point to establish local TAVR reference levels. Cancer risk is of concern but is very low in the context of TAVR patients. Improvements in clinical radiation management will reduce both patient and staff risk for all procedures.

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.

Improved equipment used by knowledgeable operators does reduce radiation.

Improvements in fluoroscopic equipment design and configuration facilitates radiation reduction. Operators should exploit improved equipment and fully apply procedural radiation management techniques. Less radiation did not impair the success rate of treating complex CTO lesions.

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.

Report of IRPA task group on the impact of the eye lens dose limits.

In 2012 IRPA established a task group (TG) to identify key issues in the implementation of the revised eye lens dose limit. The TG reported its conclusions in 2013. In January 2015, IRPA asked the TG to review progress with the implementation of the recommendations from the early report and to collate current practitioner experience. This report presents the results of a survey on the view of the IRPA professionals on the new limit to the lens of the eye and on the wider issue of tissue reactions. Recommendations derived from the survey are presented. This report was approved by IRPA Executive Council on 31 January 2017.

Influences of audible radiation-monitors or radiopaque-pads on operator and patient dose.

Real-time awareness of their own radiation exposure reduced operator irradiation. The use of radiopaque pads did not significantly reduce operator irradiation. Real or perceived measures that reduce operator risk may bias clinical decisions toward "more complete" procedures and increase patient dose.

Approaches to enhancing radiation safety in cardiovascular imaging: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Education, justification, and optimization are the cornerstones to enhancing the radiation safety of medical imaging. Education regarding the benefits and risks of imaging and the principles of radiation safety is required for all clinicians in order for them to be able to use imaging optimally. Empowering patients with knowledge of the benefits and risks of imaging will facilitate their meaningful participation in decisions related to their health care, which is necessary to achieve patient-centered care. Limiting the use of imaging to appropriate clinical indications can ensure that the benefits of imaging outweigh any potential risks. Finally, the continually expanding repertoire of techniques that allow high-quality imaging with lower radiation exposure should be used when available to achieve safer imaging. The implementation of these strategies in practice is necessary to achieve high-quality, patient-centered imaging and will require a shared effort and investment by all stakeholders, including physicians, patients, national scientific and educational organizations, politicians, and industry.

Keep that radiation off of Me!

Radial access may increase operator irradiation if the operator is closer to the X-ray beam. Using appropriate radiation shielding reduces occupational and eye doses without increasing patient irradiation. Reusable shielding can substantially reduce the costs of averting a cancer or cataract relative to the cost of disposables.

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.