Top

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

Published in:

18-12-2023 | Aneurysm | Clinical Investigation

Cumulative Effective Dose During Fluoroscopically Guided Interventions (FGI): Analysis of More Than 5000 FGIs in a Single European Center

Authors: Elke R. Gizewski, Michael Verius, Madan M. Rehani, Werner Jaschke

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

The number of fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGI) has increased significantly over time. However, little attention has been paid to possible stochastic radiation effects. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the number of patients who received cumulative effective doses over 100 mSv during FGI procedures.

Material and Methods

Five thousand five hundred and fifty four classified FGI procedures were included. Radiation dose data, retrieved from an in-house-dose-management system, was analysed. Effective doses and cumulative effective doses (CED) were calculated. Patients who received a CED > 100 mSv were identified. Radiology reports, patient age, imaging and clinical data of these patients were used to identify reasons for CED ≥ 100 mSv.

Results

One Hundred and thirty two (41.1% female) of 3981 patients received a CED > 100 mSy, with a mean CED of 173.5 ± 84.5 mSv. Mean age at first intervention was 66.1 ± 11.7 years. 81 (61.4%) of 132 were older than 64 years, one patient was < 30 years. 110 patients received ≥ 100 mSv within one year (83.4%), through FGIs: EVAR, pelvic/mesenteric interventions (stent or embolization), hepatic interventions (chemoembolization, TIPSS), embolization of cerebral aneurysms or arterio-venous-malformations.

Conclusions

Substantial CED may occur in a small but not ignorable fraction of patients (~ 3%) undergoing FGIs. Approximately 2/3rd of patients may most likely not encounter radiation-related stochastic effects due to life-threatening diseases and age at first treatment > 65 years but 1/3rd may. Patients undergoing more than one FGI (77%) carry a higher risk of accumulating effective doses > 100 mSv. Remarkably, 23% received a mean CED 162.2 ± 72.3 mSv in a single procedure.

Li X, Hirsch JA, Rehani MM, Ganguli S, Yang K, Liu B. Radiation effective dose above 100 mSv from fluoroscopically guided intervention: frequency and patient medical condition. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(2):433–40. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.22227.CrossRefPubMed

Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Berenstein A, Albert R, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part II: skin dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(8):977–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rvi.0000084601.43811.cb.CrossRefPubMed

Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Schueler BA, Geisinger M, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(6):711–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rvi.0000079980.80153.4b.CrossRefPubMed

Rehani MM, Srimahachota S. Skin injuries in interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011;147(1–2):8–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncr257.CrossRefPubMed

Rosenkrantz AB, Friedberg EB, Prologo JD, Everett C, Duszak R Jr. Generalist versus subspecialist workforce characteristics of invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Radiology. 2018;289(1):140–7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180761.CrossRefPubMed

Pitton MB, Kloeckner R, Schneider J, Ruckes C, Bersch A, Duber C. Radiation exposure in vascular angiographic procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(11):1487–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2012.05.048.CrossRefPubMed

Alexander MD, Oliff MC, Olorunsola OG, Brus-Ramer M, Nickoloff EL, Meyers PM. Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic interventional neuroradiology procedures. J Neurointerv Surg. 2010;2(1):6–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis.2009.000802.CrossRefPubMed

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2018) Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation UNSCEAR 2017 Report New York, NY: UNSCEAR. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/publications/UNSCEAR_2017_Annex-B.pdf Published March 2018.

National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (2018) NCRP Commentary No. 27: Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear-non threshold model and radiation protection. Bethesda, Maryland. Accessed August 7, 2018

10.

D’Ercole L, Thyrion FZ, Bocchiola M, Mantovani L, Klersy C. Proposed local diagnostic reference levels in angiography and interventional neuroradiology and a preliminary analysis according to the complexity of the procedures. Phys Med. 2012;28(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2010.10.008.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Heilmaier C, Zuber N, Berthold C, Kara L, Weishaupt D. Establishing local diagnostic reference levels in IR procedures with dose management software. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(3):429–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Miller DL, Kwon D, Bonavia GH. Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U.S. practice. Radiology. 2009;253(3):753–64. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2533090354.

13.

Ruiz-Cruces R, Vano E, Carrera-Magarino F, Moreno-Rodriguez F, Soler-Cantos MM, Canis-Lopez M, et al. Diagnostic reference levels and complexity indices in interventional radiology: a national programme. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4268–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4334-2.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Schegerer AA, Frija G, Paulo G, Jaschke W, Tsapaki V, Repussard J, et al. Radiation dose and diagnostic reference levels for four interventional radiology procedures: results of the prospective European multicenter survey EUCLID. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(12):9346–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08029-y.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tsapaki V, Ahmed NA, AlSuwaidi JS, Beganovic A, Benider A, BenOmrane L, et al. Radiation exposure to patients during interventional procedures in 20 countries: initial IAEA project results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):559–69. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2115.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Tuthill E, O’Hora L, O’Donohoe M, Panci S, Gilligan P, Campion D, et al. Investigation of reference levels and radiation dose associated with abdominal EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) procedures across several European Centres. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(11):4846–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4791-2.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Vano E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, et al. ICRP Publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(1):1–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645317717209.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Brower C, Rehani MM. Radiation risk issues in recurrent imaging. Br J Radiol. 2021;94(1126):20210389. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210389.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Li X, Hirsch JA, Rehani MM, Yang K, Marschall TA, Liu B. Radiation exposure in 101 non-coronary fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: reference levels of air kerma at the reference point and air kerma area product. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1130):20211108. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211108.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Liu B, Hirsch JA, Li X, Sheridan RM, Rehani MM, Zheng H, et al. Radiation dose monitoring for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: effect on patient radiation exposure. Radiology. 2019;290(3):744–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019180799.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Loose RW, Vano E, Mildenberger P, Tsapaki V, Caramella D, Sjoberg J, et al. Radiation dose management systems-requirements and recommendations for users from the ESR EuroSafe Imaging initiative. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(4):2106–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07290-x.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Li X, Hirsch JA, Rehani MM, Yang K, Liu B. Effective dose assessment for patients undergoing contemporary fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(1):158–70. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21804.CrossRefPubMed

23.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2009: Report 160

24.

Jaschke W, Bartal G, Martin CJ, Vano E. Unintended and accidental exposures, significant dose events and trigger levels in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43(8):1114–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02517-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Sanchez RM, Vano E, Fernandez JM, Rosati S, Lopez-Ibor L. Radiation doses in patient eye lenses during interventional neuroradiology procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(3):402–7. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4549.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Cousins C, Miller DL, Bernardi G, Rehani MM, Schofield P, Vano E, et al. ICRP PUBLICATION 120: radiological protection in cardiology. Ann ICRP. 2013;42(1):1–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2012.09.001.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Rehani MM, Miller DL, Baliyan V. High-dose fluoroscopically guided procedures in patients: radiation management recommendations for interventionalists. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021;44(6):849–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02703-2.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Zewde N, Ria F, Rehani MM. Organ doses and cancer risk assessment in patients exposed to high doses from recurrent CT exams. Eur J Radiol. 2022;149: 110224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110224.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ruhm W, Laurier D, Wakeford R. Cancer risk following low doses of ionising radiation—current epidemiological evidence and implications for radiological protection. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2022;873: 503436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2021.503436.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Cumulative Effective Dose During Fluoroscopically Guided Interventions (FGI): Analysis of More Than 5000 FGIs in a Single European Center
Authors: Elke R. Gizewski
Michael Verius
Madan M. Rehani
Werner Jaschke
Publication date: 18-12-2023
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Aneurysm
Aneurysm
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03604-w

2024 ESC Congress

Springer Medicine

Cumulative Effective Dose During Fluoroscopically Guided Interventions (FGI): Analysis of More Than 5000 FGIs in a Single European Center

Abstract

Background

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ESC Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Interdisciplinary Rendez-Vous Approach in Endovascular Stroke Treatment: A New Concept to Accelerate Mechanical Thrombectomy in Primary Stroke Centers

Pre-existing Hepatic Encephalopathy: Really a Contraindication to Elective TIPS?

Correction to: Local Tumour Control Following Microwave Ablation: Protocol for the Prospective Observational CIEMAR Study

The Colmar Story: Building and Sustaining a High-Volume IR Department in a Peripheral Hospital

Correction to: National UK Survey of Radiation Doses During Endovascular Aortic Interventions

Injection Sclerotherapy for Chronic Superficial Venous Insufficiency with Involuntary Movement of Toes