Advertisement

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 851–859 | Cite as

Opportunities for improvement on current nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure in Latin America: Findings from the 65-country IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols cross-sectional Study (INCAPS)

  • João V. Vitola
  • Fernando Mut
  • Erick Alexánderson
  • Thomas N. B. Pascual
  • Mathew Mercuri
  • Ganesan Karthikeyan
  • Nathan Better
  • Madan M. Rehani
  • Ravi Kashyap
  • Maurizio Dondi
  • Diana Paez
  • Andrew J. EinsteinEmail author
  • The INCAPS Investigators Group
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Comparison of Latin American (LA) nuclear cardiology (NC) practice with that in the rest of the world (RoW) will identify areas for improvement and lead to educational activities to reduce radiation exposure from NC.

Methods and Results

INCAPS collected data on all SPECT and PET procedures performed during a single week in March-April 2013 in 36 laboratories in 10 LA countries (n = 1139), and 272 laboratories in 55 countries in RoW (n = 6772). Eight “best practices” were identified a priori and a radiation-related Quality Index (QI) was devised indicating the number used. Mean radiation effective dose (ED) in LA was higher than in RoW (11.8 vs 9.1 mSv, p < 0.001). Within a populous country like Brazil, a wide variation in laboratory mean ED was found, ranging from 8.4 to 17.8 mSv. Only 11% of LA laboratories achieved median ED <9 mSv, compared to 32% in RoW (p < 0.001). QIs ranged from 2 in a laboratory in Mexico to 7 in a laboratory in Cuba. Three major opportunities to reduce ED for LA patients were identified: (1) more laboratories could implement stress-only imaging, (2) camera-based methods of ED reduction, including prone imaging, could be more frequently used, and (3) injected activity of 99mTc could be adjusted reflecting patient weight/habitus.

Conclusions

On average, radiation dose from NC is higher in LA compared to RoW, with median laboratory ED <9 mSv achieved only one third as frequently as in RoW. Opportunities to reduce radiation exposure in LA have been identified and guideline-based recommendations made to optimize protocols and adhere to the “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle.

Keywords

Nuclear cardiology SPECT PET Latin America best practices radiation dose 

Abbreviations

ALARA

As low as reasonably achievable

ED

Effective dose

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

IHD

Ischemic heart disease

INCAPS

IAEA nuclear cardiology protocols study

IQR

Interquartile range

LA

Latin America

MPI

Myocardial perfusion imaging

NC

Nuclear cardiology

QI

Quality index

RoW

Rest of world

Notes

Funding

Funding was obtained from the IAEA, the Margaret Q. Landenberger Research Foundation (in memory of Prof. A. Donny Strosberg), and the Irving Scholars Program.

Disclosures

Dr. Einstein has received research grants for other investigator-initiated studies from GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, Spectrum Dynamics, and Toshiba America Medical Systems.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Cardiovascular disease. http://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/en/. Accessed Oct 22 2015.
  2. 2.
    Lanas F, Seron P, Lanas A. Coronary heart disease and risk factors in Latin America. Global Heart 2013;8:341–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herman WH, Zimmet P. Type 2 diabetes: An epidemic requiring global attention and urgent action. Diabetes Care 2012;35:943–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guariguata L, Whiting DR, Hambleton I, Beagley J, Linnenkamp U, Shaw JE. Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014;103:137–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaziano TA, Bitton A, Anand S, Abrahams-Gessel S, Murphy A. Growing epidemic of coronary heart disease in low- and middle-income countries. Curr Probl Cardiol 2010;35:72–115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2015 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;131:e29–322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paez D, Orellana P, Gutierrez C, Ramirez R, Mut F, Torres L. Current status of nuclear medicine practice in Latin America and the Caribbean. J Nucl Med 2015;56:1629–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vitola JV. Ischemic heart disease in Latin American women—a nuclear cardiology perspective. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 2015;8:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rozanski A, Gransar H, Hayes SW, et al. Temporal trends in the frequency of inducible myocardial ischemia during cardiac stress testing: 1991 to 2009. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1054–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation exposures from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukemia and brain tumors, an historical cohort study. Lancet 2012;380:499–505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Einstein AJ. Beyond the bombs: Cancer risks of low-dose medical radiation. Lancet 2012;380:455–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:849–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Einstein AJ, Weiner SD, Bernheim A, et al. Multiple testing, cumulative radiation dose, and clinical indications in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. JAMA 2010;304:2137–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berrington A, Kim KP, Smith-Bindman R, McAreavey D. Myocardial perfusion scans: Projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States. Circulation 2010;122:2403–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, et al. EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:855–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS. Stress protocols and tracers. https://www.asnc.org/imageuploads/imagingguidelinesstressprotocols021109.pdf. 2009.
  17. 17.
    Einstein AJ, Pascual TN, Mercuri M, et al. Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure: Results from the 65 country IAEA nuclear cardiology protocols cross-sectional study (INCAPS). Eur Heart J 2015;36:1689–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:709–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oliveira ARN, Azevedo JC, Oliveira A, Mesquyita CT. Myocardial perfusion imaging: Why, how and who? Rev Bras Cardiol 2014;27:430–3.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mercuri M, Pascual TN, Mahmarian JJ, et al. Estimating the reduction in the radiation burden from nuclear cardiology through use of stress-only imaging in the United States and worldwide. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:269–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guner LA, Caliskan B, Isik I, Aksoy T, Vardareli E, Parspur A. Evaluating the role of routine prone acquisition on visual evaluation of SPECT images. J Nuclear Med Technol 2015;43:282–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Einstein AJ, Blankstein R, Andrews H, et al. Comparison of image quality, myocardial perfusion, and left ventricular function between standard imaging and single-injection ultra-low-dose imaging using a high-efficiency SPECT camera: The MILLISIEVERT study. J Nucl Med 2014.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Einstein AJ, Johnson LL, DeLuca AJ, et al. Radiation dose and prognosis of ultra-low-dose stress-first myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients with chest pain using a high-efficiency camera. J Nucl Med 2015;56:545–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    DePuey EG, Bommireddipalli S, Clark J, Leykekhman A, Thompson LB, Friedman M. A comparison of the image quality of full-time myocardial perfusion SPECT vs wide beam reconstruction half-time and half-dose SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 2011;18:273–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vitola JV, Shaw LJ, Allam AH, et al. Assessing the need for nuclear cardiology and other advanced cardiac imaging modalities in the developing world. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:956–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • João V. Vitola
    • 1
  • Fernando Mut
    • 2
  • Erick Alexánderson
    • 3
  • Thomas N. B. Pascual
    • 4
  • Mathew Mercuri
    • 5
  • Ganesan Karthikeyan
    • 6
  • Nathan Better
    • 7
  • Madan M. Rehani
    • 8
    • 9
  • Ravi Kashyap
    • 4
  • Maurizio Dondi
    • 4
  • Diana Paez
    • 4
  • Andrew J. Einstein
    • 5
    • 10
    Email author
  • The INCAPS Investigators Group
  1. 1.Quanta Diagnóstico & TerapiaCuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Medicina NuclearAsociación EspañolaMontevideoUruguay
  3. 3.Departamento de Cardiología NuclearInstituto Nacional de Cardiología “Ignacio Chávez”MexicoMexico
  4. 4.Section of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Human HealthInternational Atomic Energy AgencyViennaAustria
  5. 5.Division of Cardiology, Department of MedicineColumbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of CardiologyAll India Institute of Medical SciencesNew DelhiIndia
  7. 7.Department of Nuclear MedicineRoyal Melbourne Hospital and University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  8. 8.Radiation Protection of Patients UnitInternational Atomic Energy AgencyViennaAustria
  9. 9.Harvard Medical SchoolMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  10. 10.Department of RadiologyColumbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations