Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Radiation Dose Reduction Considerations in a Contemporary Interventional Radiology Suite

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Radiation Protection
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to evaluate patient radiation exposure during complex liver interventional procedures performed with newer angiography equipment.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creations and liver tumor embolizations performed in our new angiography suite (Discovery IGS740, GE Healthcare). T tests were used to compare air kerma-area product (PKA) and reference plane air kerma (Ka,r) in the new room versus data from historical rooms and previous studies (including the RAD IR study). Results were expressed as medians [interquartile ranges (Q1, Q3)].

Results

From February 2015 to June 2016, 134 complex liver interventional procedures were performed in the new room, including 14 TIPS creations, 60 hepatic tumor arterial embolizations (HAEs), 26 Y90 mappings (Y90m), and 34 Y90 radioembolizations (Y90). Ka,r (Gy) values were as follows: TIPS, 0.65 (0.24, 1.15); HAE, 0.89 (0.49, 1.49); Y90m, 0.54 (0.38, 0.94); Y90, 0.46 (0.21, 1.06). PKA (Gy·cm2) values were as follows: TIPS, 148.2 (66.7, 326.5); HAE, 142.6 (88, 217.8); Y90m, 148.3 (98.2, 247); Y90, 90.8 (43.9, 161.5). Ka,r and PKA were lower in the new room than in historical rooms [Ka,r and PKA reductions: TIPS, 58 and 49%; HAE, 31 and 39%; Y90m, 58 and 52%; Y90, 49 and 56% (p < 0.05)] and versus the RAD IR study [Ka,r and PKA reductions: TIPS, 64 and 43%; HAE, 26 and 40% (p < 0.05)].

Conclusions

Using the latest technology and image processing tools enables significant reduction in radiation exposure during complex liver interventional procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chauhan NR, Kapoor BS. Advanced intraprocedural imaging applications in hepatobiliary intervention. Dig Dis Interv. 2017;1:155–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Windham-Herman A-M, Chapiro J, Geschwind J-F. Minimally invasive, image-guided therapy for liver cancer: what every oncologist needs to know. Am J Hematol Oncol. 2017;13:30–6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Williams JR. The interdependence of staff and patient doses in interventional radiology. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:498–503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-43:2010/AMD1:2017: Amendment 1-Medical electrical equipment-Part 2-43: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for interventional procedures; 2017.

  5. Hertault A, Maurel B, Midulla M, et al. Editor’s choice: minimizing radiation exposure during endovascular procedures—basic knowledge, literature review, and reporting standards. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50:21–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hymes SR, Strom EA, Fife C. Radiation dermatitis: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment 2006. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:28–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aroua A, Rickli H, Stauffer JC, et al. How to set up and apply reference levels in fluoroscopy at a national level. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1621–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dave JK, Eschelman DJ, Wasserman JR, Gonsalves CF, Gingold EL. A phantom study and a retrospective clinical analysis to investigate the impact of a new image processing technology on radiation dose and image quality during hepatic embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27:593–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Efstathopoulos EP, Brountzos EN, Alexopoulou E, et al. Patient radiation exposure measurements during interventional procedures: a prospective study. Health Phys. 2006;91:36–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hidajat N, Wust P, Felix R, Schroder RJ. Radiation exposure to patient and staff in hepatic chemoembolization: risk estimation of cancer and deterministic effects. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006;29:791–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hidajat N, Wust P, Kreuschner M, Felix R, Schroder RJ. Radiation risks for the radiologist performing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Br J Radiol. 2006;79:483–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Khoury HJ, Garzon WJ, Andrade G, et al. Radiation exposure to patients and medical staff in hepatic chemoembolisation interventional procedures in Recife, Brazil. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015;165:263–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kothary N, Abdelmaksoud MH, Tognolini A, et al. Imaging guidance with C-arm CT: prospective evaluation of its impact on patient radiation exposure during transhepatic arterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:1535–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Livingstone RS, Keshava SN. Technical note: reduction of radiation dose using ultrasound guidance during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2011;21:13–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Livingstone RS, Mammen T. Evaluation of radiation dose to patients during abdominal embolizations. Indian J Med Sci. 2005;59:527–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I—overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:711–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Miraglia R, Maruzzelli L, Cortis K, et al. Radiation exposure in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39:210–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Papageorgiou E, Tsapaki V, Tsalafoutas IA, et al. Comparison of patient doses in interventional radiology procedures performed in two large hospitals in Greece. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2007;124:97–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pinto NGV, Braz D, Vallim MA, et al. Radiation exposure in interventional radiology. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2007;580:586–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruiz-Cruces R, Vano E, Carrera-Magarino F, et al. Diagnostic reference levels and complexity indices in interventional radiology: a national programme. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:4268–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schernthaner RE, Duran R, Chapiro J, Wang Z, Geschwind JF, Lin M. A new angiographic imaging platform reduces radiation exposure for patients with liver cancer treated with transarterial chemoembolization. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3255–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vano E, Jarvinen H, Kosunen A, et al. Patient dose in interventional radiology: a European survey. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2008;129:39–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vano E, Sanchez R, Fernandez JM, et al. Patient dose reference levels for interventional radiology: a national approach. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009;32:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vano E, Segarra A, Fernandez JM, et al. A pilot experience launching a national dose protocol for vascular and interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2008;129:46–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Verdun FR, Aroua A, Trueb PR, Vock P, Valley JF. Diagnostic and interventional radiology: a strategy to introduce reference dose level taking into account the national practice. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;114:188–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wen X, Jiang X, Li R, Zhang J, Yang P, Shen B. Novel X-ray imaging technology allows substantial patient radiation reduction without image quality impairment in repetitive transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:1361–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zweers D, Geleijns J, Aarts NJ, et al. Patient and staff radiation dose in fluoroscopy-guided TIPS procedures and dose reduction, using dedicated fluoroscopy exposure settings. Br J Radiol. 1998;71:672–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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;28:429–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wunderle KA, Rakowski JT, Dong FF. Approaches to interventional fluoroscopic dose curves. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:5788.

    Google Scholar 

  30. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment-characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices-part 1-1: determination of the detective quantum efficiency-detectors used in radiographic imaging; 2015.

  31. Mitchell EL, Furey P. Prevention of radiation injury from medical imaging. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:22S–7S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sanchez R, Vano E, Fernandez JM, Gallego JJ. Staff radiation doses in a real-time display inside the angiography room. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33:1210–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bordier C, Klausz R, Desponds L. Patient dose map indications on interventional X-ray systems and validation with Gafchromic XR-RV3 film. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015;163:306–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hertault A, Maurel B, Sobocinski J, et al. Impact of hybrid rooms with image fusion on radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48:382–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Iwazawa J, Ohue S, Hashimoto N, Mitani T. Comparison of the number of image acquisitions and procedural time required for transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with and without tumor-feeder detection software. Radiol Res Pract. 2013;2013:580839.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaladji A, Daoudal A, Clochard E, et al. Interest of fusion imaging and modern navigation tools with hybrid rooms in endovascular aortic procedures. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58:458–66.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lin PJ, Schueler BA, Balter S, et al. Accuracy and calibration of integrated radiation output indicators in diagnostic radiology: a report of the AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 190. Med Phys. 2015;42:6815–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Report No. 168-radiation dose management for fluoroscopically-guided interventional medical procedures; 2010.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Megan Griffiths, scientific–medical writer with the Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, for assistance in preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Catherine Panick

  2. Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Kevin Wunderle, Mark Sands & Charles Martin

Authors
  1. Catherine Panick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Wunderle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Sands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Martin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Disclosure of potential conflicts of Interest: The corresponding author serves on the Interventional Oncology Scientific Advisory Board for Boston Scientific Corporation. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Informed Consent

Retrospective analysis approved by our local institutional review board, exempted from patient informed consent. As our study is a retrospective analysis, for this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panick, C., Wunderle, K., Sands, M. et al. Patient Radiation Dose Reduction Considerations in a Contemporary Interventional Radiology Suite. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41, 1925–1934 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-2052-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-2052-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation