http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0583-7921
Figures
Abstract
Cardiac catheterization procedure is the gold standard to diagnose and treat cardiovascular disease. However, radiation safety and cancer risk remain major concerns. This study aimed to real-time dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence and mortality in operators. Coronary angiography (CA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), CA, and others (radiofrequency ablation, pacemaker and defibrillator implantation) procedures with different beam directions, were undertaken on x-ray angiography system. A real-time electronic personal dosimeter (EPD) system was used to measure the radiation dose of staff during all procedures. We followed the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report to estimate the LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality. Primary operators received radiation dose in CA with PCI, CA, and others procedures were 59.33 ± 95.03 μSv, 39.81 ± 103.85 μSv, and 21.92 ± 37.04 μSv, respectively. As to the assistant operators were 30.03 ± 55.67 μSv, 14.67 ± 14.88 μSv, and 4 μSv, respectively. LAR of all cancer incidences for staffs aged from 18 to 65 are varied from 0.40% for males to 1.50% for females. LAR of all cancer mortality for staffs aged from 18 to 65 are varied from 0.22% for males to 0.83% for females. Our study provided an easy, real-time and dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate LAR of cancer for staff during the cardiac catheterization procedures. The LAR for all cancer incidence is about twice that for cancer mortality. Although the radiation doses of staff are lower during each procedure, the increased years of service leads to greater radiation risk to the staff.
Citation: Tu C-Y, Lin C-J, Yang B-H, Wu J, Wu T-H (2020) Cardiac catheterization real-time dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate lifetime attributable risk of cancer. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0234461. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234461
Editor: Jay Widmer, Baylor Scott and White, Texas A&M College of Medicine, UNITED STATES
Received: October 28, 2019; Accepted: May 27, 2020; Published: June 16, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Tu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
List of abbreviations: LAR, lifetime attributable risk; CA, coronary angiography; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; EPD, electronic personal dosimeter; BEIR, biological effects of ionizing radiation
Introduction
Cardiac catheterization is an ionizing radiation procedure used to diagnose heart conditions or treat cardiovascular diseases. The procedures are well recognized to facilitate early and accurate diagnosis of the disease, improve treatment planning to save patient’s life [1]. Nevertheless, the procedures usually perform with longer fluoroscopy time and may cause radiation exposure to staff [2–5]. Due to the correlation between exposure to ionizing radiation and cancer risk is related [6–11], staff are becoming increasingly aware of the potential damaging effects of ionizing radiation during the procedures. Thus, estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk in staff during the procedures is a major issue regarding the public health significance.
Although a number of studies had examined the radiation exposure during the interventional procedures in recent years, most of studies were performed on a phantom to simulate the radiation exposure to staff [12–17]. These phantom studies did not evaluate the dynamic changes in staff positions, beam orientation and movement, exposure parameters, and so on; moreover, in clinical procedures are often complex. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was real-time dynamics measurement of medical radiation dose to estimate the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence and mortality in staff.
Materials and methods
Study design
The study was approved by the Mackay Memorial Hospital Institutional Review Board on June 22, 2017 and valid till June 21, 2018 (approval number: 17MMHIS075e). The constitution and operation of this review board are according to the guidelines of ICH-GCP, the records/information were anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis. All procedures were Data were collected for 3 different types of procedures: Coronary angiography (CA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), CA, and others (radiofrequency ablation, pacemaker and defibrillator implantation). Procedural details including types of procedure, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy tube voltage, fluoroscopy tube current, cine acquisition tube voltage, cine acquisition tube current, cine acquisition time, cine acquisition runs, dose area product (DAP), beam directions, staff (primary and assistant operator) age and radiation dose were recorded.
Radiation dose measurement
Experimental measurements were used three x-ray angiography systems(one was Philips Allura FD20, the others were Philips Allura FD 10) with similar cardiac catheterization protocols. All protocols followed standard technical characteristics of image acquisition and quality control. Collimation and magnification were used during the procedures according to the clinical requirements. The operational protocols evaluated were fluoroscopy (15 pulses/s and 0.9 mm Cu as additional filtration) and cine acquisition (15 pulses/s without Cu filtration) modes. All staff adhered to standard radiation protection procedures. Each staff wore a lead apron, a thyroid collar, and leaded glasses. Because the thyroid is known to be radiosensitive and makes a significant contribution to the radiation dose [18–21], a real-time electronic personal dosimeter (EPD) system (i2, Raysafe) was placed over the left side of staff’s thyroid collar to measure the radiation dose at various locations. EPD system has store instantaneous dose rate and cumulative dose values at the beginning to the end of each procedure. In addition, the system is design to measure the personal dose equivalent at depth of 10 mm (Hp(10)) for x-ray, and is considered to be the dose to the whole body [22].
Cancer risk estimation
Currently, the linear no-threshold model is widely used to estimate the LAR of cancer from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. The LAR of cancer incidence and mortality, which are defined as additional cancer risk above and beyond baseline cancer risk. In this study, the LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality were calculated based on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report [9]. Average radiation doses for each of the 3 procedure types were used to estimate the LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality. The LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality were estimated as follows:
Where (e) is the age at exposure, (s) is the sex specific excess relative risk (ERR), (D) is the dose of radiation received, (a) is the specific cancer site at attained age, the summation is from a = e + L to l00, where a denotes attained age (years) and L is a risk-free latent period (L = 5 for solid cancers; L = 2 for leukemia), ERR (e, s, D, a) is the risk model in the equation, m (s, a) is the baseline risk, S(s, a) is the probability of surviving until age (a), S(s, a)/S(s, e) is the probability of surviving to age (a) conditional on survival to age (e). This study estimated the cancer risk under the assumption that the operators were continuously exposed to radiation from the age of 18 to 65.
Statistical analysis
Beam directions distribution of cardiac catheterization procedures was presented as percentage. Procedural details were presented as means and standard deviations by descriptive analyses. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to DAP versus staff radiation dose. The p value < 0.05 was considered significant. LAR of cancer incidence and mortality for staff were expressed as line graphs.
Results
There were 71 procedures were included in our study, 43 CA with PCI, 16 CA and 12 others. The beam directions distribution in CA with PCI, CA, and others procedures are illustrated in Fig 1. In CA with PCI procedure, the beam directions distribution of fluoroscopy and acquisition were most complexity. The procedural details in CA with PCI, CA, and others are listed in Table 1. Primary operators doses were measured under 43 CA with PCI, 16 CA, and 12 others procedures, respectively. As to the assistant operators doses were 38 CA with PCI, 6 CA, and 1 others procedures, respectively. Primary operators radiation dose in CA with PCI, CA, and others procedures were 59.33 ± 95.03 μSv, 39.81 ± 103.85 μSv, and 21.92 ± 37.04 μSv, respectively. As to the assistant operators were 30.03 ± 55.67 μSv, 14.67 ± 14.88 μSv, and 4 μSv, respectively. The fluoroscopy tube voltage of CA with PCI procedure (98.54±16.55 kV) was significantly higher than other two procedures, while the acquisition tube voltage was the same situation. The fluoroscopy time was longest in CA with PCI procedure (14.67±12.83 mins), followed by others procedure (14.21±12.73 mins) and CA procedure (6.10±3.49 mins). The acquisition time was also longest in CA with PCI procedure (53.16 ± 10.33 s), followed by CA procedure and others procedure. However, the fluoroscopy and acquisition tube current in others procedure were significantly lower than in the other two procedures. Correlation between DAP and staff radiation dose from all procedures are illustrated in Fig 2. Scatter graph of DAP versus primary operator (p = 0.004, R2 = 0.11) and assistant operator radiation dose (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.46) demonstrated weak positive correlations.
Beam directions distribution of cardiac catheterization procedures in (a) CA with PCI, (b) CA, and (c) Others. (LAO: left anterior oblique, RAO: right anterior oblique, AP: anterior posterior, CRAN: cranial, CAU: caudal, F: fluoroscopy, A: acquisition).
(a) DAP versus primary operator. (b) DAP versus assistant operator.
We used a 12 month average for the preceding year to estimate the 1 year occupational radiation exposure to the operators is presented in Fig 3. The annual average radiation dose per primary operator from all procedures was 3.49 mSv. As to the assistant operator was 1.30 mSv. Estimated LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality from cardiac catheterization procedures for operators are presented in Table 2. LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality for male primary operators aged from 18 to 65 were 1.07%, and 0.59%, respectively. As to the female primary operators aged from 18 to 65 were 1.50%, and 0.83%, respectively. In contrast, the LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality were significantly lower in assistant operators. The LAR of all cancer incidence and mortality for females were significantly higher than for males.
Discussion
Many previous important phantom studies for similar cardiac catheterization procedures are listed in Table 3. However, our study was real-time dynamics measurement of medical radiation to estimate the link between medical radiation exposure and LAR of cancer in staff from cardiac catheterization procedures. Indeed, we analyzed the beam directions distribution complexity during the different procedures in this study. We have demonstrated the more complex procedures are associated with increasing the radiation doses. Estimation of the radiation doses in staff have a wide variation across the literatures as a result of the levels of complexity of the procedures [1, 3, 23–25]. This phenomenon is comparable with our staff radiation doses. Nevertheless, the assistant operators radiation doses were significantly lower than primary operators is observed in all procedures. This result is caused by many factors during the procedures such as equipment set-up, operator technique, use of radiation reducing techniques, workload and procedural complexity [26–29].
There have been many studies[1, 30, 31] to estimate effective dose or effective dose equivalent using personal monitors. The information from these studies could be used in evaluating likely dose levels. The modified Niklason algorithm provided a measure of the exposure of sensitive organs in the trunk:
where E is effective dose, Hos is Hp (0.07) measured over shield on thyroid level, and Hu is Hp (10) measured under apron. The Hp (10) over shield on thyroid level is converted to Hp (0.07) by adding 3% to the measurement dose. For a single dosimeter worn at the thyroid collar, again assuming HU ≈ 0.01 Hos, the conversion algorithm as follows:
Martin et al.[31] is recommended for estimating the eye dose from a measurement with an unshielded neck dosimeter, the equation:
Cardiac catheterization procedures provide great diagnostic and treatment benefit to patients. Unfortunately, the radiation doses of these procedures are imposed on staff. The radiation dose to staff during the procedure is due to Compton scatter in the patient which is the dominant interaction in tissue at diagnostic x-ray energies [28, 53]. Modern angiography system provides DAP values to monitor the radiation dose for patient during the procedures. From some literatures reported a positive correlation between DAP and staff radiation dose during the procedures [22, 29, 54]. This means that DAP values can be represented the relative radiation dose of the staff. Nevertheless, our results demonstrated a weak correlation. This could be due to several factors: first, the quantity of radiation varies significantly depending on the position of staff relative to the x-ray source and patient; second, the staff used a ceiling-mounted radiation shielding screen for radiation protection; third, the staff might leave the cardiac catheterization lab during the acquisition. This implies that the radiation dose to staff during the procedures might be reduced by improving radiation protection practices.
Although our study demonstrates that the radiation doses of staff are lower during each procedure, the increased years of service leads to greater radiation risk to the operators. In fact, the radiation risks are mainly stochastic effects at low radiation exposure levels. These effects with the probability of occurrence increasing with the absorbed dose [28, 55]. Therefore, lead aprons and thyroidal collars and leaded glasses allow staff to achieve As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) during the procedures. As was shown in an earlier report [28], lead aprons of 0.25 or 0.5 mm absorb 85–92% 100 kV of energy and 93–97% of 100 kV of energy, respectively. All operators wear lead aprons, thyroid collars, and leaded glasses to protect themselves, during long-term performance of the procedures, it is still impossible to completely avoid radiation exposure and its effects. If operators fail to use protective gear or adjust the exposure time properly, within a few years operators may have increased the LAR of cancer. Optimizing the fluoroscopy or cine acquisition dose rate to reduce staff radiation dose and long-term risk is much more efficient. Ishibashi et al. [56] reported the fluoroscopy dose rates in Japan were 7.5 pulses/s at 44% of CA, 7.5 pulses/s at 43% of PCI, and 7.5 pulses/s at 54% of radiofrequency catheter ablationpulses, respectively. As to the cine acquisition dose rates were 15 pulses/s at 93% of CA, 15 pulses/s at 90% of PCI, and 7.5 pulses/s at 55% of radiofrequency catheter ablationpulses, respectively. van Dijk et al. [57] reported the fluoroscopy dose rate in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation was 7.5 pulses/s. As to the cine acquisition dose rates were 3.75–15 pulses/s. In our study, the default pulse rates (15 pulses/s) both fluoroscopy and cine acquisition dose rates were used in other procedures. Consequently, the fluoroscopy and cine acquisition dose rates would be optimized to ensure that the radiation dose would be reduced to an acceptable level.
There are a few limitations in our study. First of all, due to the characteristics of equipment and method of radiation dose measurement which lead to each beam direction and field size variation were not straightforward determined during the procedure. Our study did not analyze the correlation between each beam direction, field size variation and radiation dose. Second, the presented exposure levels reflected the procedure types were most often performed at two hospitals. This certainly did not cover the all types of procedures and which was affected the sample size. Third, the hand doses may be much greater than doses at the neck, eye, or trunk during the procedures. There is no conversion algorithm to estimate the hand dose from the doses at neck. The dosimeter should be worn towards on the hand adjacent to the x-ray tube if a meaningful result is to be obtained. Fourth, BEIR VII report was based on a linear no-threshold (LNT) model to assess the correlation between radiation exposure and biological risk. The principal source was the effect of whole body acute exposure to high radiation dose. Whether the principal source can be extrapolated to the partial body exposure at a much lower radiation dose. In addition, our study did not estimate the yearly of radiation exposure exactly and job tenure of operators. However, according to the BEIR VII report, when exposed continuously to 10 mSv on a yearly basis from ages 18 to 65 years old, cancer incidence was 3,059 for male and 4,295 for female. That data was directly applied to the calculation of cancer risk to medical staff in many studies [10, 58–60]. Although the LNT model for low-dose (<100mSv) is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty, there is no direct evidence to estimate the cancer risks for staff during the cardiac catheterization procedures. Currently BEIR VII report offers the most accurate estimates of cancer incidence and mortality from medical radiation dose.
Conclusion
The radiation dose to staff mainly depend on the large number of acquisition and longer fluoroscopy time during the procedures. The present study provided an easy, real-time and dynamic radiation dose measurement to estimate LAR of cancer for staff in the cardiac catheterization procedures. Although the radiation doses of staff are lower during each procedure, the increased years of service leads to greater radiation risk to the staff. In addition, the LAR for all cancer incidence is about twice that for cancer mortality. Given the limits of the correlation between each beam direction, field size variation and staff radiation dose of this study. In our future studies will be of value to validate these findings.
References
- 1. Kim KP, Miller DL, Balter S, Kleinerman RA, Linet MS, Kwon D, et al. Occupational radiation doses to operators performing cardiac catheterization procedures. Health physics. 2008;94(3):211–27. pmid:18301095
- 2. Eichenlaub M, Astheimer K, Minners J, Blum T, Restle C, Maring C, et al. Evaluation of a new ultralow-dose radiation protocol for electrophysiological device implantation: A near-zero fluoroscopy approach for device implantation. Heart rhythm. 2019.
- 3. Khaleghi Fard A, Alian AHM, Pourafkari L, Ghojazadeh M, Tarighatnia A, Farajollahi A. Impact of pelvic and rad-board lead shields on operator and patient radiation dose in trans-radial coronary procedures. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2019.
- 4. Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Guagliumi G, Del Greco M, Gaita F, Picano E. Occupational health risks in cardiac catheterization laboratory workers. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2016;9(4):e003273. pmid:27072525
- 5. Abdelaal E, Plourde G, MacHaalany J, Arsenault J, Rimac G, Déry J-P, et al. Effectiveness of low rate fluoroscopy at reducing operator and patient radiation dose during transradial coronary angiography and interventions. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014;7(5):567–74. pmid:24746649
- 6. Marant‐Micallef C, Shield KD, Vignat J, Cléro E, Kesminiene A, Hill C, et al. The risk of cancer attributable to diagnostic medical radiation: Estimation for France in 2015. International journal of cancer. 2019;144(12):2954–63. pmid:30537057
- 7. Al Kharji S, Connell T, Bernier M, Eisenberg MJ. Ionizing Radiation in Interventional Cardiology and Electrophysiology. Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 2019;35(4):535–8. pmid:30935644
- 8. Richardson DB, Cardis E, Daniels RD, Gillies M, Haylock R, Leuraud K, et al. Site-specific Solid Cancer Mortality After Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: A Cohort Study of Workers (INWORKS). Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2018;29(1):31–40.
- 9.
Council NR. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2: National Academies Press; 2006.
- 10. Venneri L, Rossi F, Botto N, Andreassi MG, Salcone N, Emad A, et al. Cancer risk from professional exposure in staff working in cardiac catheterization laboratory: insights from the National Research Council's Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII Report. American heart journal. 2009;157(1):118–24. pmid:19081407
- 11. Vijayalakshmi K, Kelly D, Chapple C-L, Williams D, Wright R, Stewart MJ, et al. Cardiac catheterisation: radiation doses and lifetime risk of malignancy. Heart. 2007;93(3):370–1. pmid:17322516
- 12. Sailer AM, Paulis L, Vergoossen L, Wildberger JE, Jeukens CR. Optimizing Staff Dose in Fluoroscopy-Guided Interventions by Comparing Clinical Data with Phantom Experiments. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2019;30(5):701–8. e1. pmid:30952523
- 13. Ishii H, Chida K, Satsurai K, Haga Y, Kaga Y, Abe M, et al. A phantom study to determine the optimal placement of eye dosemeters on interventional cardiology staff. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2019.
- 14. Nowak M, Sans-Merce M, Lemesre C, Elmiger R, Damet J. Eye lens monitoring programme for medical staff involved in fluoroscopy guided interventional procedures in Switzerland. Physica Medica. 2019;57:33–40. pmid:30738529
- 15. Ordiales J, Nogales J, Sánchez-Casanueva R, Vano E, Fernández J, Álvarez F, et al. Reduction of occupational radiation dose in staff at the cardiac catheterisation laboratory by protective material placed on the patient. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2015;165(1–4):272–5. pmid:25848096
- 16. Vano E, Sanchez RM, Fernandez JM, Bartal G, Canevaro L, Lykawka R, et al. A set of patient and staff dose data for validation of Monte Carlo calculations in interventional cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015;165(1–4):235–9. Epub 2015/03/25. pmid:25802462.
- 17. Morishima Y, Chida K, Muroya Y, Utsumi Y. Effectiveness of a new lead-shielding device and additional filter for reducing staff and patient radiation exposure during videofluoroscopic swallowing study using a human phantom. Dysphagia. 2018;33(1):109–14. pmid:28921404
- 18. Niklason L, Marx M, Chan H-P. Interventional radiologists: occupational radiation doses and risks. Radiology. 1993;187(3):729–33. pmid:8497622
- 19. Mateya CF, Claycamp HG. Phantom-derived estimation of effective dose equivalent from X rays with and without a lead apron. Health physics. 1997;72(6):842–7. pmid:9169926
- 20. Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Manios E, Vardas P, Gourtsoyiannis N. Occupational exposure in the electrophysiology laboratory: quantifying and minimizing radiation burden. The British journal of radiology. 2006;79(944):644–51. pmid:16641414
- 21. Siiskonen T, Tapiovaara M, Kosunen A, Lehtinen M, Vartiainen E. Monte Carlo simulations of occupational radiation doses in interventional radiology. The British journal of radiology. 2007;80(954):460–8. pmid:17151067
- 22. Nassef M, Kinsara A. Occupational radiation dose for medical workers at a University Hospital. Journal of Taibah University for Science. 2017;11(6):1259–66.
- 23. Faroux L, Daval C, Lesaffre F, Blanpain T, Chabert J-P, Martin A, et al. Physicians’ exposure to radiation during electrophysiology procedures. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2019:1–5.
- 24. Tang K-T, Ting C-Y, Lin C-C, Chen Z-C, Wu W-s, editors. Evaluation of Dose Reduction in Patients and Operators during Fluoroscopy Guided Cardiology Procedures. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Radiation Detectors and Their Uses (ISRD2018); 2019.
- 25. Sciahbasi A, Piccaluga E, Sarandrea A, Nucci G, Caretto N, Rigattieri S, et al. Operator Pelvic Radiation Exposure During Percutaneous Coronary Procedures. The Journal of invasive cardiology. 2018;30(2):71–4. pmid:29245152
- 26. Massalha S, Almufleh A, Small G, Marvin B, Keidar Z, Israel O, et al. Strategies for Minimizing Occupational Radiation Exposure in Cardiac Imaging. Current cardiology reports. 2019;21(8):71. pmid:31227929
- 27. Patel C, Grossman M, Shabanova V, Asnes J. Reducing Radiation Exposure in Cardiac Catheterizations for Congenital Heart Disease. Pediatric cardiology. 2019;40(3):638–49. pmid:30542920
- 28. Rehn E. Modeling of scatter radiation during interventional X-ray procedures 2015.
- 29. Hirshfeld JW, Ferrari VA, Bengel FM, Bergersen L, Chambers CE, Einstein AJ, et al. 2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging—Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 2: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018;71(24):2829–55. pmid:29729878
- 30. Padovani R, Rodella C. Staff dosimetry in interventional cardiology. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2001;94(1–2):99–103. pmid:11487853
- 31. Martin C. Personal dosimetry for interventional operators: when and how should monitoring be done? The British journal of radiology. 2011;84(1003):639–48. pmid:21159809
- 32. Panetta CJ, Galbraith EM, Yanavitski M, Koller PK, Shah B, Iqbal S, et al. Reduced radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory with a novel vertical radiation shield. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020;95(1):7–12. pmid:31793752
- 33. Patet C, Ryckx N, Arroyo D, Cook S, Goy JJ. Efficacy of the SEPARPROCATH® radiation drape to reduce radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization: A pilot comparative study. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;94(3):387–91. pmid:30773797
- 34. Etzel R, König AM, Keil B, Fiebich M, Mahnken AH. Effectiveness of a new radiation protection system in the interventional radiology setting. European journal of radiology. 2018;106:56–61. pmid:30150051
- 35. Jia Q, Chen Z, Jiang X, Zhao Z, Huang M, Li J, et al. Operator Radiation and the Efficacy of Ceiling-Suspended Lead Screen Shielding during Coronary Angiography: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study Using Real-Time Dosimeters. Scientific reports. 2017;7:42077. pmid:28169334
- 36. Haga Y, Chida K, Kaga Y, Sota M, Meguro T, Zuguchi M. Occupational eye dose in interventional cardiology procedures. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):1–7.
- 37. Alnewaini Z, Langer E, Schaber P, David M, Kretz D, Steil V, et al. Real‐time, ray casting‐based scatter dose estimation for c‐arm x‐ray system. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2017;18(2):144–53. pmid:28300387
- 38. Oliveira da Silva M, Canevaro L, Hunt J, Rodrigues B. Comparing Measured and Calculated Doses in Interventional Cardiology Procedures. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2017;176(4):439–43. pmid:28338948
- 39. Perisinakis K, Solomou G, Stratakis J, Damilakis J. Data and methods to assess occupational exposure to personnel involved in cardiac catheterization procedures. Physica Medica. 2016;32(2):386–92. pmid:26948387
- 40. Sciahbasi A, Rigattieri S, Sarandrea A, Cera M, Di Russo C, Fedele S, et al. Operator radiation exposure during right or left transradial coronary angiography: a phantom study. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2015;16(7):386–90. pmid:26235976
- 41. Vano E, Sanchez R, Fernandez J, Bartal G, Canevaro L, Lykawka R, et al. A set of patient and staff dose data for validation of Monte Carlo calculations in interventional cardiology. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2015;165(1–4):235–9. pmid:25802462
- 42. Principi S, Ginjaume M, Duch MA, Sánchez RM, Fernández JM, Vano E. Influence of dosemeter position for the assessment of eye lens dose during interventional cardiology. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2015;164(1–2):79–83. pmid:25514919
- 43. Liu H, Jin Z, Jing L. Comparison of radiation dose to operator between transradial and transfemoral coronary angiography with optimised radiation protection: a phantom study. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2014;158(4):412–20. pmid:24162374
- 44. Farah J, Struelens L, Dabin J, Koukorava C, Donadille L, Jacob S, et al. A correlation study of eye lens dose and personal dose equivalent for interventional cardiologists. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2013;157(4):561–9. pmid:23858492
- 45. Ertel A, Nadelson J, Shroff AR, Sweis R, Ferrera D, Vidovich MI. Radiation Dose Reduction during Radial Cardiac Catheterization: Evaluation of a Dedicated Radial Angiography Absorption Shielding Drape. ISRN Cardiol. 2012;2012:769167. Epub 2012/09/19. pmid:22988525; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3439952.
- 46. Chida K, Morishima Y, Inaba Y, Taura M, Ebata A, Takeda K, et al. Physician-received scatter radiation with angiography systems used for interventional radiology: comparison among many X-ray systems. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2012;149(4):410–6. pmid:22117021
- 47. von Boetticher H, Lachmund J, Hoffmann W. Cardiac catheterization: impact of face and neck shielding on new estimates of effective dose. Health Physics. 2009;97(6):622–7. pmid:19901597
- 48. Mesbahi A, Mehnati P, Keshtkar A, Aslanabadi N. Comparison of radiation dose to patient and staff for two interventional cardiology units: a phantom study. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2008;131(3):399–403. pmid:18621917
- 49. Schultz F, Zoetelief J. Dosemeter readings and effective dose to the cardiologist with protective clothing in a simulated interventional procedure. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2008;129(1–3):311–5. pmid:18388175
- 50. Chida K, Morishima Y, Katahira Y, Chiba H, Zuguchi M. Evaluation of additional lead shielding in protecting the physician from radiation during cardiac interventional procedures. Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology. 2005;61(12):1632–7. pmid:16395238
- 51. Kuon E, Dahm JB, Empen K, Robinson DM, Reuter G, Wucherer M. Identification of less-irradiating tube angulations in invasive cardiology. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004;44(7):1420–8. pmid:15464322
- 52. Balter S. Stray radiation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2001;94(1–2):183–8. pmid:11487832
- 53. Bushberg JT, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
- 54. Heilmaier C, Kara L, Zuber N, Berthold C, Weishaupt D. Combined use of a patient dose monitoring system and a real-time occupational dose monitoring system for fluoroscopically guided interventions. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2016;27(4):584–92. pmid:26724965
- 55. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology. 2009;251(1):6–12. pmid:19332841
- 56. Ishibashi T, Takei Y, Sakamoto H, Yamashita Y, Kato M, Tsukamoto A, et al. Nationwide Survey of Medical Radiation Exposure on Cardiovascular Examinations in Japan. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi. 2020;76(1):64. pmid:31956188
- 57. van Dijk JD, Ottervanger JP, Delnoy PPH, Lagerweij MC, Knollema S, Slump CH, et al. Impact of new X-ray technology on patient dose in pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantations. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2017;48(1):105–10. pmid:27785663
- 58. Cho H-O, Park H-S, Choi H-C, Cho Y-K, Yoon H-J, Kim H-S, et al. Radiation dose and cancer risk of cardiac electrophysiology procedures. International Journal of Arrhythmia. 2015;16(1):4–10.
- 59. Mehta S. Health risks of low level radiation exposures: a review. Ind J Nucl Med. 2005;20:29–41.
- 60. Kim JB, Lee J, Park K. Radiation hazards to vascular surgeon and scrub nurse in mobile fluoroscopy equipped hybrid vascular room. Annals of surgical treatment and research. 2017;92(3):156–63. pmid:28289670