Novel X-ray imaging technology enables significant patient dose reduction in interventional cardiology while maintaining diagnostic image quality

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Volumn 86, Issue 5, 2015, Pages E205-E212

  Eloot, Liesbeth ^a   Thierens, Hubert ^a   Taeymans, Yves ^b   Drieghe, Benny ^b   De Pooter, Jan ^b   Van Peteghem, Sylvie ^b   Buytaert, Dimitri ^a   Gijs, Thomas ^a   Lapere, Régine ^a   Bacher, Klaus ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

coronary angiography; coronary artery disease; imaging; radiation dose

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CARDIAC IMAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NOISE REDUCTION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION SAFETY; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; X RAY SYSTEM; X RAY TUBE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ALGORITHM; CINEANGIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY BLOOD VESSEL; DEVICES; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; CINEANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY VESSELS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84940454757     PISSN: 15221946     EISSN: 1522726X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.25913     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Melanie Nichols NT, Scarborough P, et al., Cardiovascular disease in Europe 2014: Epidemiological update. Eur Heart J 2014; 2950-2959.
2. Klein AJ, Garcia JA,. Rotational coronary angiography. Cardiol Clin 2009; 27: 395-405.
3. Empen K, Kuon E, Hummel A, et al., Comparison of rotational with conventional coronary angiography. Am Heart J 2010; 160: 552-563.
4. UNSCEAR. Report of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiaion. Unscear 2008 report Vol I: Sources of ionizing radiation. Annex A: Medical radiation exposure. United Nations Publications. 2010;
5. Cousins C, Miller DL, Bernardi G, et al,; and International Commission on Radiological P. ICRP PUBLICATION 120: Radiological protection in cardiology. Annals of the ICRP 2013; 42: 1-125. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.09.001.
6. Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al., Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. New Engl J Med 2009; 361: 849-857.
7. Sun Z, AbAziz A, Yusof AK,. Radiation-induced noncancer risks in interventional cardiology: Optimisation of procedures and staff and patient dose reduction. BioMed Res Int 2013; 2013: 976-962.
8. Weinberg BD, Vance A, Arbique GM, et al., Evaluation of fluoroscopic cases qualifying as potential fluoroscopic sentinel events. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: 457-462.
9. Georges JL, Belle L, Ricard C, et al., Patient exposure to X-rays during coronary angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention: Results of a multicenter national survey. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 83: 729-738.
10. Fetterly KA, Mathew V, Lennon R, et al., Radiation dose reduction in the invasive cardiovascular laboratory: Implementing a culture and philosophy of radiation safety. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5: 866-873.
11. Wassef AW, Hiebert B, Ravandi A, et al., Radiation dose reduction in the cardiac catheterization laboratory utilizing a novel protocol. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 550-557.
12. Eloot L, Bacher K, Steenbeke F, et al., Three-dimensional rotational X-ray acquisition technique is reducing patients' cancer risk in coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82: E419-E427.
13. Soderman M, Holmin S, Andersson T, et al., Image noise reduction algorithm for digital subtraction angiography: Clinical results. Radiology 2013; 269: 553-560.
14. Soderman M, Mauti M, Boon S, et al., Radiation dose in neuroangiography using image noise reduction technology: A population study based on 614 patients. Neuroradiology 2013; 55: 1365-1372.
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: 1678-1682.
16. Bacher K, Bogaert E, Lapere R, et al., Patient-specific dose and radiation risk estimation in pediatric cardiac catheterization. Circulation 2005; 111: 83-89.
17. Hakansson M, Svensson S, Zachrisson S, et al., VIEWDEX: An efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139: 42-51.
18. Sanchez R, Vano E, Ubeda C, et al., Influence of image metrics when assessing image quality from a test object in cardiac X-ray systems: Part II. J Digit Imaging 2012; 25: 537-541.
19. De Crop A, Bacher K, Van Hoof T, et al., Correlation of Contrast-detail analysis and clinical image quality assessment in chest radiography with a human cadaver study. Radiology 2011; 262: 298-304.
20. Dragusin O, Bosmans H, Pappas C, et al., An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53: 4927-4940.
21. Vano E, Ubeda C, Martinez LC, et al., Paediatric interventional cardiology: Flat detector versus image intensifier using a test object. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 7287-7297.
22. Wondrow MA, Laskey WK, Hildner FJ, et al., Cardiac catheterization laboratory imaging quality assurance program. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001; 52: 59-66.
23. Bernardi G, Padovani R, Morocutti G, et al., A method based on DIMOND quality criteria to evaluate imaging in diagnostic and interventional cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001; 94: 167-172.
24. Bernardi G, Bar O, Jezewski T, et al., Quality criteria for cardiac images: An update. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129: 87-90.
25. Richard S, Siewerdsen JH,. Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy x-ray images. Med Phys 2008; 35: 5043-5053.
26. Bogaert E, Bacher K, Thierens H,. A large-scale multicentre study in belgium of dose area product values and effective doses in interventional cardiology using contemporary X-ray equipment. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 128: 312-323.
27. Vano E, Jarvinen H, Kosunen A, et al., Patient dose in interventional radiology: A European survey. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129: 39-45.
28. Padovani R, Vano E, Trianni A, et al., Reference levels at european level for cardiac interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129: 104-107.
29. Kuon E, Dahm JB, Empen K, et al., Identification of less-irradiating tube angulations in invasive cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 1420-1428.
30. Smith IR, Cameron J, Mengersen KL, et al., Evaluation of coronary angiographic projections to balance the clinical yield with the radiation risk. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e722-e728.
31. Agarwal S, Parashar A, Bajaj NS, et al., Relationship of beam angulation and radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 558-566.
32. Bogaert E, Bacher K, Lemmens K, et al., A large-scale multicentre study of patient skin doses in interventional cardiology: Dose-area product action levels and dose reference levels. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 303-312.
33. Neofotistou V, Vano E, Padovani R, et al., Preliminary reference levels in interventional cardiology. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 2259-2263.