Physicians' Radiation Exposure in the Catheterization Lab Does the Type of Procedure Matter?

被引:51
作者
Ingwersen, Maja [1 ]
Drabik, Anna [2 ]
Kulka, Ulrike [3 ]
Oestreicher, Ursula [3 ]
Fricke, Simon [4 ]
Krankenberg, Hans [1 ]
Schwencke, Carsten [1 ]
Mathey, Detlef [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cardiovasc Ctr, D-22527 Hamburg, Germany
[2] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Dept Med Biometry & Epidemiol, Hamburg, Germany
[3] German Fed Off Radiat Protect, Dept Radiat Protect & Hlth, Oberschleissheim, Germany
[4] Philips GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
biological dosimetry; dose aware system; occupational radiation exposure; radiation exposure in cardiology and angiology; real-time dosimetry; IONIZING-RADIATION; DOSIMETRY; RISKS; TIME;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcin.2013.05.012
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives This study sought to evaluate differences in radiation exposure of the operator depending on the type of catheterization lab procedure. Background Invasive cardiologists and angiologists are exposed to long-term, low-dose occupational radiation. Increased workload and specialization require more detailed knowledge of the extent and cause of the radiation exposure. Methods In this prospective single-center experience, radiation doses of 3 operators were measured by real-time dosimetry for body, neck, and hand during 284 procedures in 281 patients over a period of 14 weeks. To determine the association between the type of procedure and the doses and to draw a pairwise comparison between the procedures, 3 mixed models were used. Results The type of procedure, the patient's body mass index, and the fluoroscopy time were independently associated with the operator's radiation exposure. Per procedure, the operators were exposed to a mean effective dose (E) of 2.2 +/- 5.9 mu Sv. Compared with coronary angiography, E was 2.3-fold higher in pelvic procedures (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7 to 3.0, p < 0.001), 1.7-fold higher in upper limb procedures (95% CI: 1.3 to 2.1, p < 0.001), and 1.4-fold higher in below-the-knee procedures (95% CI: 1.1 to 2.0, p = 0.023). The mean eye dose was 19.1 +/- 37.6 mu Sv. Eye doses were significantly higher in peripheral procedures than in coronary angiography procedures. The mean hand dose was 99.6 +/- 196.0 mu Sv. Hand doses were significantly higher in pelvic than in coronary angiography, upper limb, and below-the-knee procedures. Conclusions Endovascular procedures for pelvic, upper limb, and below-the-knee disease are accompanied with a higher radiation exposure of the operator than with coronary procedures. (C) 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
引用
收藏
页码:1095 / 1102
页数:8
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   REVIEW OF RETROSPECTIVE DOSIMETRY TECHNIQUES FOR EXTERNAL IONISING RADIATION EXPOSURES [J].
Ainsbury, E. A. ;
Bakhanova, E. ;
Barquinero, J. F. ;
Brai, M. ;
Chumak, V. ;
Correcher, V. ;
Darroudi, F. ;
Fattibene, P. ;
Gruel, G. ;
Guclu, I. ;
Horn, S. ;
Jaworska, A. ;
Kulka, U. ;
Lindholm, C. ;
Lloyd, D. ;
Longo, A. ;
Marrale, M. ;
Monteiro Gil, O. ;
Oestreicher, U. ;
Pajic, J. ;
Rakic, B. ;
Romm, H. ;
Trompier, F. ;
Veronese, I. ;
Voisin, P. ;
Vral, A. ;
Whitehouse, C. A. ;
Wieser, A. ;
Woda, C. ;
Wojcik, A. ;
Rothkamm, K. .
RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2011, 147 (04) :573-592
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2006, HLTH RISKS EXP LOW L
[3]  
Bernardi G, 2000, CATHETER CARDIO INTE, V51, P1
[4]   The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry:: Estimates of radiation-related cancer risks [J].
Cardis, E. ;
Vrijheid, M. ;
Blettner, M. ;
Gilbert, E. ;
Hakama, M. ;
Hill, C. ;
Howe, G. ;
Kaldor, J. ;
Muirhead, C. R. ;
Schubauer-Berigan, M. ;
Yoshimura, T. ;
Bermann, F. ;
Cowper, G. ;
Fix, J. ;
Hacker, C. ;
Heinmiller, B. ;
Marshall, M. ;
Thierry-Chef, I. ;
Utterback, D. ;
Ahn, Y-O ;
Amoros, E. ;
Ashmore, P. ;
Auvinen, A. ;
Bae, J-M. ;
Bernar, J. ;
Biau, A. ;
Combalot, E. ;
Deboodt, P. ;
Sacristan, A. Diez ;
Eklof, M. ;
Engels, H. ;
Engholm, G. ;
Gulis, G. ;
Habib, R. R. ;
Holan, K. ;
Hyvonen, H. ;
Kerekes, A. ;
Kurtinaitis, J. ;
Malker, H. ;
Martuzzi, M. ;
Mastauskas, A. ;
Monnet, A. ;
Moser, M. ;
Pearce, M. S. ;
Richardson, D. B. ;
Rodriguez-Artalejo, F. ;
Rogel, A. ;
Tardy, H. ;
Telle-Lamberton, M. ;
Turai, I. .
RADIATION RESEARCH, 2007, 167 (04) :396-416
[5]  
Cousins C., 2013, Annals of the ICRP, V42, P9, DOI 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.09.001
[6]   Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction [J].
Eisenberg, Mark J. ;
Afilalo, Jonathan ;
Lawler, Patrick R. ;
Abrahamowicz, Michal ;
Richard, Hugues ;
Pilote, Louise .
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2011, 183 (04) :430-436
[7]   Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation from Medical Imaging Procedures. [J].
Fazel, Reza ;
Krumholz, Harlan M. ;
Wang, Yongfei ;
Ross, Joseph S. ;
Chen, Jersey ;
Ting, Henry H. ;
Shah, Nilay D. ;
Nasir, Khurram ;
Einstein, Andrew J. ;
Nallamothu, Brahmajee K. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 361 (09) :849-857
[8]  
Hendry J. H., 2012, Annals of the ICRP, V41, P64, DOI 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.06.013
[9]   Radiation Exposure in Cardiovascular Medicine How Do We Protect Our Patients and Ourselves? [J].
Hirshfeld, John W., Jr. .
CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2011, 4 (03) :216-218
[10]   Minimising radiation exposure to physicians performing fluoroscopically guided cardiac catheterisation procedures: a review [J].
Kim, Kwang Pyo ;
Miller, Donald L. .
RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2009, 133 (04) :227-233