Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Does reducing radiation levels for procedures affect image quality and radiation to proceduralists? A double-blinded randomised study of two protocols.
Zhang, Z; Phang, C C; Tan, R Y; Pang, S C; Chandramohan, S; Zhuang, K D; Sulaiman, M S; Tay, K H; Chong, T T; Tan, C S.
Afiliação
  • Zhang Z; Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, 169857, Singapore. Electronic address: zhang.zezhou@u.duke.nus.edu.
  • Phang CC; Department of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
  • Tan RY; Department of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
  • Pang SC; Department of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
  • Chandramohan S; Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
  • Zhuang KD; Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore. Electronic address: keithzhangz@gmail.com.
  • Sulaiman MS; Department of Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
  • Tay KH; Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
  • Chong TT; Department of Vascular Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
  • Tan CS; Department of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
Clin Radiol ; 76(2): 157.e1-157.e10, 2021 Feb.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32993879
ABSTRACT

AIM:

To evaluate the ultra-lose dose imaging protocol (ULDP), compared to the standard low-dose imaging protocol (LDP), which are used for haemodialysis access, in terms of radiation exposure and image quality. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

This was a single-centre, institutional review board-approved, prospective, double-blinded randomised controlled study to compare radiation exposure and image quality of the ULDP and LDP. Ten proceduralists, two radiographers, and 11 nurses were enrolled. Radiation exposure during 80 procedures (40 angioplasties and 40 thrombolysis) was recorded (direct radiation to patients from protocol report and scattered radiation to participants from the RaySafe i2 real-time dosimetry system). Baseline characteristics of procedure were recorded. Image quality was assessed subjectively using questionnaires based on the five-point Likert scale after each procedure.

RESULTS:

Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses (0.506±0.430 versus 0.847±0.965 µSv/s, p=0.044; 0.571±1.284 versus 1.284±1.007 mGy/s, p<0.001; and 0.052±0.071 versus 0.141±0.185 µSv/s, p=0.005, respectively). No significant difference in image quality or duration of procedure was observed (all p values >0.05).

CONCLUSION:

Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses without compromising the image quality or duration of procedure.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doses de Radiação / Angiografia Digital / Angioplastia / Exposição à Radiação / Trombólise Mecânica / Oclusão de Enxerto Vascular Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Doses de Radiação / Angiografia Digital / Angioplastia / Exposição à Radiação / Trombólise Mecânica / Oclusão de Enxerto Vascular Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article