Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 193, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1680-1685

  Chida, Koichi ^a   Inaba, Yohei ^b   Saito, Haruo ^a   Ishibashi, Tadashi ^a   Takahashi, Shoki ^b   Kohzuki, Masahiro ^b   Zuguchi, Masayuki ^a  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b TOHOKU UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Flat panel detector; Fluoroscopy; Interventional radiology; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; CATHETERIZATION; CINEANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE;

CINEANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMANS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; RADIOMETRY;

EID: 73449098960     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2747     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 85: avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Ottawa, ON, Canada: ICRP, 2001
2. Balter S. Stray radiation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001; 94:183-188
3. Chida K, Saito H, Zuguchi M, et al. Does digital acquisition reduce patients' skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures? An experimental study. AJR 2004; 183:1111-1114
4. Hirshfeld JW Jr, Balter S, Brinker JA, et al. ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/ American Heart Association American, College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:2259-2282
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Website. Cutaneous radiation injury: fact sheet for physicians. www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/ criphysicianfactsheet. asp. Published May 10, 2006. Accessed August 24, 2009
6. Chida K, Fuda K, Saito H, et al. Patient skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures: conventional fluoroscopy versus pulsed fluoroscopy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 69:115-121
7. Chida K, Kagaya Y, Saito H, et al. Total entrance skin dose: an effective indicator of maximum radiation dose to the skin during percutaneous coronary intervention. AJR 2007; 189:989; [web]W224-W227
8. Chida K, Fuda K, Kagaya Y, et al. Influence of the target vessel on the location and area of maximum skin dose during percutaneous coronary intervention. Acta Radiol 2007; 48:846-850
9. Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, et al. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation 2009; 119:1056-1065
10. Chida K, Morishima Y, Masuyama H, et al. Effect of radiation monitoring method and formula differences on estimated physician dose during percutaneous coronary intervention. Acta Radiol 2009; 50:170-173
11. Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures. Part 1. Characteristics of radiation injury. AJR 2001; 177:3-11
12. Koenig TR, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures. Part 2. Review of 73 cases and recommendations for minimizing dose delivered to patient. AJR 2001; 177:13-20
13. Chida K, Saito H, Otani H, et al. Relationship between fluoroscopic time, dose-area product, body weight, and maximum radiation skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures. AJR 2006; 186:774-778
14. Chida K, Saito H, Kagaya Y, et al. Indicators of the maximum radiation dose to the skin during percutaneous coronary intervention in different target vessels. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006; 68:236-241
15. Muhogora WE, Ahmed NA, Almosabihi A, et al. Patient doses in radiographic examinations in 12 countries in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe: initial results from IAEA projects. AJR 2008; 190:1453-1461
16. Holmes DR Jr, Laskey WK, Wondrow MA, Cusma JT. Flat-panel detectors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: revolution or evolution-what are the issues? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 63:324-330
17. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N, Dafnomili P, Kyriakidis Z, Neofotistou V. Dose performance evaluation of a charge coupled device and a flatpanel digital fluoroscopy system recently installed in an interventional cardiology laboratory. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2004; 111:297-304
18. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N, et al. Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 2004; 77:562-567
19. Suzuki S, Furui S, Kobayashi I, et al. Radiation dose to patients and radiologists during transcatheter arterial embolization: comparison of a digital flat-panel system and conventional unit. AJR 2005; 185:855-859
20. Davies AG, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Moore J, Sivananthan MU. Do flat detector cardiac x-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifierbased systems? Study comparing x-ray dose and image quality. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:1787-1794
21. Tsapaki V, Ahmed NA, AlSuwaidi JS, et al. Radiation exposure to patients during interventional procedures in 20 countries: initial IAEA project results. AJR 2009; 193:559-569