Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 77, Issue 919, 2004, Pages 562-567

  Tsapaki, V ^a   Kottou, S ^b   Kollaros, N ^c   Dafnomili, P ^c   Koutelou, M ^c   Vano, E ^d   Neofotistou, V ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Greece)

^c ONASSIS CARDIAC SURGERY CENTER   (Greece)

^d HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

^e G GENNIMATAS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CINERADIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; DOSIMETER; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOVASCULAR PROCEDURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERCUTANEOUS TRANSLUMINAL ANGIOPLASTY; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTION; TIME; X RAY TUBE;

ANGIOPLASTY, TRANSLUMINAL, PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMANS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; SKIN;

EID: 4344562889     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/83257582     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Kotter E, Langer M. Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detector. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2562-70.
2. Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M. Storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol 1997;7(Suppl. 3):S58-S65.
3. Spahn M, Strotzer M, Völk M, Böhm S, Geiger B, Hahm G, et al. Digital radiography with a large-area, amorphous-silicon, flat-panel X-ray detector system. Invest Radiol 2000;35:260-6.
4. Neitzel U, Böhm A, Maack I. Comparison of low-contrast detail detectability with five different conventional and digital radiographic imaging systems. In: Krupinski EA, editor. Medical imaging 2000: image perception and performance. Proc SPIE 2000;398:216-23.
5. Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2001;11: 1704-9.
6. Neofotistou V. Review of patient dosimetry in cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:177-82.
7. Broadhead DA, Chapple CL, Faulkner K, Davies ML, McCallum H. The impact of cardiology on the collective effective dose in the North of England. Br J Radiol 1997;70:492-7.
8. Padovani R, Rodella CA. Staff dosimetry in interventional cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:99-103.
9. Tsapaki V. Patient and staff dosimetry protocols in interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:113-6.
10. Kottou S, Neofotistou V, Tsapaki V, Lobotessi H, Manetou A, Molfetas MG. Personnel doses in haemodynamic units in Greece. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:121-4.
11. Faulkner K, Vano E. Deterministic effects in interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:95-8.
12. Vano E, Gonzalez L, Ten JI, Fernandez JM, Guibelalde E, Macaya C. Skin dose and dose-area product values for interventional cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 2001;74: 48-55.
13. Vano E, Goicolea J, Galvan C, Gonzalez L, Meiggs L, Ten J, et al. Skin radiation injuries in patients following repeated coronary angioplasty procedures. Br J Radiol 2001;74: 1023-31.
14. Vano E, Arranz L, Sastre JM, Moro C, Ledo A, Garate MT, et al. Dosimetric and radiation protection considerations based on some cases of patient skin injuries in interventional cardiology. Br J Radiol 1998;71:510-6.
15. European Commission. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom on Health Protection of Individuals against Dangers of Ionizing Radiation in relation to Medical Exposure. Official Journal of the European Communities 1997;L 180,40.
16. United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Avoidance of serious X-ray induced skin injuries to patients during fluoroscopically guided procedures. Med Bull 1994; 24:7-17.
17. Padovani R, Novario R, Bernardi G. Optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Radiat Prot Dosim 1998;80:303-6.
18. Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). I. Experimental studies. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2571-81.
19. Okamura T, et al. Clinical evaluation of digital radiography based on a large-area cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector compared with screen-film radiography for skeletal system and abdomen. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1741-7.
20. Hosch WP, Fink C, Radeleff B, Kampschulte A, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J. Radiation dose reduction in chest radiography using a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector. Clin Radiol 2002;57:902-7.
21. Volk M, et al. Digital radiography of the skeleton using a large-area detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for dose reduction in comparison with screen-film radiography. Clin Radiol 2000;55:615-21.
22. Peer S, Giacomuzzi S, Peer R, Gassner E, Steingruber I, Jaschke W. Resolution requirements for monitor viewing of digital flat-panel detector radiographs: a contrast detail analysis. Eur Radiol 2003;13:413-7.
23. Maolinbay M, El-Mohri Y, Antonuk LE, Jee KW, Nassif S, Rong X, et al. Additive noise properties of active matrix flat-panel imagers. Med Phys 2000;27:1841-54.
24. Dosimetry Working Party of the Institute of Physical Sciences. National Protocol for Patient Dose Measurements in Diagnostic Radiology. NRPB and College of Radiographers, 1992.
25. Faulkner K. Introduction of constancy checks protocols in fluoroscopic systems. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:65-8.
26. Measures for optimizing radiological information and dose in digital imaging and interventional radiology. European Commission. Fifth Framework Program, 1998-2002. Program Acronym: FP5-EAECTP C. Project Reference: FIGM-2000-00061.Project Acronym: DIMOND III. http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep/FP5/FP5_PROJ1_search.html
27. Zoetelief J, Faulkner K. Equipment requirements and specification for digital and interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:43-8.
28. Steffenino G, Rossetti V, Ribichini F, Dellavalle A, Garbarino M, Cerati R, et al. Short communication: Staff dose reduction during coronary angiography using low framing speed. Br J Radiol 1996;69:860-4.
29. Hellenic Radiation Protection Law; FEK 216/06-03-2001.
30. Guidance notes for the protection of persons against ionizing radiation arising from medical and dental use. London: HMSO, 1980.
31. International Atomic Energy Agency. International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. Safety Series No 115. Vienna: IAEA, 1992.
32. Department of Health and Human Services/Food and Drug Administration. Diagnostic X-ray systems and their major components: performance standards. 21CFR part 1020 Federal Register 58 26386-26411 FDA. USA: FDA, 1993.
33. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Cardiac catheterization equipment performance. AAPM Report No. 70, 2001.
34. Marshall NW. Optimization of dose per image in digital imaging. Radiat Prot Dosim 2001;94:83-7.
35. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Ad Hoc Task Force on Cardiac Catheterizations. ACC/AHA Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. JACC 1991;18:1149-82.
36. Betsou S, et al. Patient radiation doses during cardiac catheterization procedures. Br J Radiol 1998;71:634-9.
37. Canadillas B-Perdomo B, Perez-Martin C, Catalan-Acosta A, Armas-Trujillo D, Hernandez-Armas J. Radiation doses to patients in haemodynamic procedures. Proceedings of IAEA Conference on radiological protection of patients in diagnostic and interventional radiology nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, Malaga 2001:281-5.
38. Neofotistou V, Vano E, Padovani R, Kotre J, Dowling A, Toivonen M, et al. Preliminary reference levels in interventional cardiology. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2259-63.
39. Broadhead DA, Chapple CL, Faulkner K. The impact of digital imaging on patient doses during barium studies. Br J Radiol 1995;68:992-6.
40. Ruiz-Cruces R, Perez-Martinez M, Martin-Palanca A, Flores A, Critofol J, Martinez-Morillo M, et al. Patient dose in radiologically guided interventional vascular procedures: conventional versus digital systems. Radiology 1997; 205:385-93.