Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Clinical Interventional Radiology ISVIR 2017; 01(02): 100-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601881
Review Article
Indian Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

Radiation Safety Culture: The Way Forward in Practicing Interventional Radiology

Roshan S. Livingstone
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Anna Varghese
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 July 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Radiation dose from catheter-based interventional procedures performed in catheterization laboratories are of concern as an increase of radiation dose beyond threshold limits will be detrimental to the patient. It is important that radiation personnel understand the biological effects of radiation since patient and staff exposure may be significantly high when not adhered to radiation safety standards. Use of protective accessories, such as lead aprons and goggles, has been practiced worldwide for individual protection. Dose audit during interventional procedures is important for the benefit of the patient. Several factors including angiographic equipment, preset protocols, and tube angulations that influence radiation dose to patient and operators and hence modification on radiation safety work practices in the catheterization lab is warranted. Implementing periodic radiation safety training for occupational workers would be beneficial to practice a radiation safety culture.

Keywords

radiation protection - dose reduction strategies - catheterization laboratory
 

  • References

  • 1 Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 1, characteristics of radiation injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177 (01) 3-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wagner LK, Eifel PJ, Geise RA. Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1994; 5 (01) 71-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wagner LK, McNeese MD, Marx MV, Siegel EL. Severe skin reactions from interventional fluoroscopy: case report and review of the literature. Radiology 1999; 213 (03) 773-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE. , et al; RAD-IR study. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14 (06) 711-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Balter S, Moses J. Managing patient dose in interventional cardiology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 70 (02) 244-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 American College of Radiology. ACR–AAMP Technical Standard for Management of the Use of Radiation in Fluoroscopic Procedures. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 7 National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII-phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 8 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 Report Vol. I: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. New York, NY: United Nations; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, Romano-Miller M, Rehani MM. Radiation-associated lens opacities in catheterization personnel: results of a survey and direct assessments. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24 (02) 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Efstathopoulos EP, Pantos I, Andreou M. , et al. Occupational radiation doses to the extremities and the eyes in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 2011; 84 (997) 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Efstathopoulos EP. Occupational eye lens dose in interventional radiology and cardiology: new insights. Imaging Med 2016; 8: 1-2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jacob S, Donadille L, Maccia C. , et al. Eye lens radiation exposure to interventional cardiologists: a retrospective assessment of cumulative doses. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2013; 153 (03) 282-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Seibert JA. Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they?. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36 (Suppl 2): 173-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Livingstone RS, Chase D, Varghese A, George PV, George OK. Transition from image intensifier to flat panel detector in interventional cardiology: Impact of radiation dose. J Med Phys 2015; 40 (01) 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dekker LR, van der Voort PH, Simmers TA. , et al. New image processing and noise reduction technology allows reduction of radiation exposure in complex electrophysiologic interventions while maintaining optimal image quality: a randomized clinical trial. Heart Rhythm 2013; 10 (11) 1678-1682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dragusin O, Breisch R, Bokou C, Beissel J. Does a flat panel detector reduce the patient radiation dose in interventional cardiology?. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139 (1-3): 266-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Livingstone RS, Timothy Peace BS, Chandy S, George PV, Pati P. Optimization and audit of radiation dose during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Med Phys 2007; 32 (04) 145-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Marshall NW, Chapple CL, Kotre CJ. Diagnostic reference levels in interventional radiology. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45 (12) 3833-3846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Betsou S, Efstathopoulos EP, Katritsis D, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. Patient radiation doses during cardiac catheterization procedures. Br J Radiol 1998; 71 (846) 634-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Broadhead DA, Chapple C-L, Faulkner K. The impact of digital imaging on patient doses during barium studies. Br J Radiol 1995; 68 (813) 992-996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ruiz-Cruces R, Pérez-Martínez M, Martín-Palanca A. , et al. Patient dose in radiologically guided interventional vascular procedures: conventional versus digital systems. Radiology 1997; 205 (02) 385-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Balter S. Methods for measuring fluoroscopic skin dose. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36 (Suppl 2): 136-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Le Heron JC. Estimation of effective dose to the patient during medical x-ray examinations from measurements of the dose-area product. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37 (11) 2117-2126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 IAEA. Radiation protection of patients. Available at: https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/5_InterventionalCardiology/index.htm . Accessed October 2016
    PubMed
  • 25 Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic and dental X-ray examinations in the UK. Br J Radiol 2009; 82 (973) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Livingstone RS, Koshy CG, Raj DV. Evaluation of work practices and radiation dose during adult micturating cystourethrography examinations performed using a digital imaging system. Br J Radiol 2004; 77 (923) 927-930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Roshan S, Livingstone S, Augustine P, Leena RV, Raj V. Evaluation of radiation dose and risk during hysterosalpinography examinations performed using digital imaging system. J Med Phys 2003; 28 (04) 232-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Livingstone RS, Augustine P, Aparna I, Raj DV. Dose audit and evaluation of work practices during barium procedures using digital radiography techniques. Health Phys 2004; 87 (04) 358-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Livingstone RS, Raghuram L, Raj V. Patient and staff doses during cerebral angiography. J Med Phys 2001; 26 (02) 60-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Livingstone RS, Raghuram L, Korah IP, Raj DV. Evaluation of radiation risk and work practices during cerebral interventions. J Radiol Prot 2003; 23 (03) 327-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Livingstone RS, Mammen T. ; GOPI. Evaluation of radiation dose to patients during abdominal embolizations. Indian J Med Sci 2005; 59 (12) 527-533
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 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 (01) 13-14
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Varghese A, Livingstone RS, Varghese L. , et al. Radiation doses and estimated risk from angiographic projections during coronary angiography performed using novel flat detector. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2016; 17 (03) 5926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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 (01) 61-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lespérance J, Saltiel J, Petitclerc R, Bourassa MG. Angulated views in the sagittal plane for improved accuracy of cinecoronary angiography. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1974; 121 (03) 565-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nath PH, Velasquez G, Castaneda-Zuniga WR, Zollikofer C, Formanek A, Amplatz K. An essential view in coronary arteriography. Circulation 1979; 60 (01) 101-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Miller RA, Warkentin DL, Felix WG, Hashemian M, Leighton RF. Angulated views in coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1980; 134 (02) 407-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Fessler J. X-ray imaging: noise and SNR. Available at: http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/course/516/l/c6-noise.pdf . Accessed January 2016
    PubMed
  • 39 Livingstone RS. Radiation protection. In: Catheter Based Cardiovascular Interventions–A Knowledge Based Approach. 1st ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013: 261-277
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Practical tips in ensuring radiation safety in the use of medical diagnostic X-ray equipment. Available at: www.aerb.gov.in/AERBPortal/pages/English/t/XRay/forms/osg.pdf . Accessed November 2016
    PubMed
  • 41 Safety code for medical diagnostic x-ray equipment and installations. AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Safety Code No. AERB/SC/MED-2 (Rev. 1). http://www.health.mp.gov.in/radiation/Safety%20Code.pdf . Accessed November, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kuon E, Dahm JB, Empen K, Robinson DM, Reuter G, Wucherer M. Identification of less-irradiating tube angulations in invasive cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44 (07) 1420-1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Vano E, Gonzalez L, Fernández JM, Haskal ZJ. Eye lens exposure to radiation in interventional suites: caution is warranted. Radiology 2008; 248 (03) 945-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Magee JS, Martin CJ, Sandblom V. , et al. Derivation and application of dose reduction factors for protective eyewear worn in interventional radiology and cardiology. J Radiol Prot 2014; 34 (04) 811-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar