Radiation dose and image quality in a pediatric interventional cardiology team

Carlos Ubeda ,Patricia Miranda ,Dandaro Dalmazzo

doi:10.24294/irr.v2i1.1717

Home - IRR - Volume 2 - Issue 1

Submit to IRR

Journal Browser

Volume | Year

Issue

• Current lssue

View All

News and Announcements

Nov 8, 2024

World Radiography Day 8 November 2024 - Importance, Theme & History
Oct 22, 2024

Fourth Committee Considers Effects of Atomic Radiation, Reaffirms Commitment to UN Scientific Committee, Hears Reports on Information, Peacekeeping

View All

Radiation dose and image quality in a pediatric interventional cardiology team

Carlos Ubeda

Patricia Miranda

Dandaro Dalmazzo

Imaging and Radiation Research 2019, 2(1), 24-31; https://doi.org/10.24294/irr.v2i1.1717

Submitted：01 Jan 1970

Accepted：01 Jan 1970

Published：19 Sept 2007

Download PDF(879.88KB)

XML

Abstract

The optimized methodology and results of the new characterization in terms of dose and image quality of the X-ray system used in the main pediatric hemodynamics service in Chile are presented. In addition, scattered dose rate values at the operator’s eye level are reported for all acquisition modes available in different thicknesses of absorbent media and angiography. The characterization was performed according to the European DIMOND and SENTINEL protocols adapted to pediatric procedures. The air kerma at the entrance surface (ESAK) was measured and the image quality parameters signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and a figure of merit (FOM) were calculated. The scattered dose rate was measured in personal dose equivalent units. The ESAK for fluoroscopic modes ranged from 0.2 to 35.6 μGy/image when passing from 4 to 20 cm of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). For the cine mode, these values ranged from 2.8 to 160.1 μGy/image. The values of the image quality parameters showed a correct system configuration, although abnormal values were observed in the medium fluoroscopic mode. As for the scattered dose rate at the level of the cardiologist’s eyes, the highest value is PMMA with a thickness of 20 cm, where the cine mode reached 9.41 mSv·h-1. The differences found from previous evaluations can be explained by the deterioration of the system and the change of one of the X-ray tubes.

Keywords

References

UNSCEAR. UNSCEAR 2008 Report: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Vienna International Centre: United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiations; 2008.

NCRP. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report No. 160. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009.

ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP 2007; 37: 332.

Board on Radiation Effects Research (BEIR). Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2006. p. 424.

Hall E, Giaccia A. Radiobiology for the radiologist. New York: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 16–29, 135–155, 216.

Vano E, Gonzalez L, Beneytez F, et al. Lens injuries induced by occupational exposure in non-optimized interventional radiology laboratories. The British Journal of Radiology 1998; 71(847): 728–733.

Haskal ZJ. Interventional radiology carries occupational risk for cataracts. RSNA News 2004; 14: 5–6.

RELID. Retrospective evaluation of lens injuries and dose. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2014.

Ubeda C, Vano E, Gonzalez L, et al. Scatter and staff dose levels in paediatric interventional cardiology: A multicentre study. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2010; 140(1): 67–74.

Ciraj-Bjelac O, Rehani MM, Sim KH, et al. Risk for radiation-induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern? Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2010; 76(6): 826–834.

ICRP. Statement on tissue reactions. Ottawa: International Commission on Radiological Protection; 2011.

Rehani MM, Vano E, Ciraj-Bjelac O, et al. Radiation and cataract. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2011; 147(1–2): 300–304.

EC. Directive 84/466/Euratom 30/06/1997 [Internet]. Luxembourg: European Commission; 1997. Available from: http://ec.eu-ropa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiopro-tection/doc/legislation/9743_en.pdf(Cons.01/2014).

IAEA. Radiation Protection and Radiation Source Safety: International Basic Safety Standards. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2011.

DIMOND. Measures for optimising radiological information and dose in digital imaging and interventional radiology. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2002.

Faulkner K, Malone J, Vano E, et al. The SENTINEL project. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2008; 129(1–3): 3–5.

Vano E, Ubeda C, Martinez L C, et al. Paediatric interventional cardiology: Flat detector versus image intensifier using a test object. Physics in Medicine & Biology 2010; 55(23): 7287–7297.

Vano E, Ubeda C, Leyton F, et al. Radiation dose and image quality for paediatric interventional cardiology. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2008; 53: 4049–4062.

Ubeda C, Vano E, Miranda P, et al. Radiation dose and image quality for paediatric interventional cardiology systems. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2011a; 147: 429–438.

Ubeda C, Vano E, Miranda P, et al. Radiation dose and image quality for adult interventional cardiology in Chile: A national survey. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2011b; 147(1–2): 90–93.

Rassow J, Schmaltz AA, Hentrich F, et al. Effective doses to patients from paediatric cardiac catheterization. The British Journal of Radiology 2000; 73(866): 172–183.

ICRU. Patient dosimetry for x-rays used in medical imaging. International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements. Report 74. Journal of the ICRU 2005; 5: 113.

Vano E, Ubeda C, Miranda P, et al. Radiation protection in pediatric interventional cardiology: An IAEA PILOT program in Latin America. Health Physics 2011; 101(3): 233–237.

IAEA. Annual report for 2007. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2007.

IAEA. Building partnerships to fight cancer. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2009.

Vano E, Ubeda C, Fernandez J M, et al. Dose assessment during the commissioning of flat detector imaging systems for cardiology. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2009b; 136(1): 30–37.

Ubeda C, Vano E, Gonzalez L, et al. Influence of the anti-scatter grid on dose and image quality in pediatric interventional cardiology X-ray systems. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2012; 82(1): 51–57.

Vano E, Ubeda C, Leyton F, et al. Radiation dose and image quality for paediatric interventional cardiology. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2008; 53: 4049–4062.

Ubeda C, Vano E, Miranda P, et al. Pilot program on patient dosimetry in pediatric interventional cardiology in Chile. Medical Physics 2012; 39(5): 2424–2430.

Vano E, Ubeda C, Leyton F, et al. Staff radiation doses in interventional cardiology: Correlation with patient exposure. Pediatric Cardiology 2009; 30(4): 409-413.

Vassileva J, Vano E, Ubeda C, et al. Impact of the X-ray system setting on patient dose and image quality; A case study with two interventional cardiology systems. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2013; 155(3): 329–334.

Ubeda C, Vano E, Gonzalez L, et al. Evaluation of patient doses and lens radiation doses to interventional cardiologists in a nationwide survey in Chile. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2013; 157(1): 36–43.

Zamenhof RG. The optimization of signal detectability in digital fluoroscopy. Medical Physics 1982; 9(5): 688–694.

Gagne RM, Boswell JS, Myers KJ. Signal detectability in digital radiography: Spatial domain figures of merit. Medical Physics 2003; 30(8): 2180–2193.

Previous
article in this issue

Next
article in this issue