Monitoring neurointerventional radiation doses using dose-tracking software: implications for the establishment of local diagnostic reference levels

  • Holly Acton
  • Karl James
  • Richard G. Kavanagh
  • Colm O’Tuathaigh
  • Deirdre Moloney
  • Gerald Wyse
  • Noel Fanning
  • Michael Maher
  • Owen J. O’Connor
Interventional
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

There is potential for high radiation exposure during neurointerventional procedures. Increasing regulatory requirements mandate dose monitoring of patients and staff, and justification of high levels of radiation exposure. This paper demonstrates the potential to use radiation dose-tracking software to establish local diagnostic reference levels.

Methods

Consecutive neurointerventional procedures, performed in a single institution within a one-year period, were retrospectively studied. Dose area product (DAP) data were collected using dose-tracking software and clinical data obtained from a prospectively generated patient treatment database.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-four procedures met the selection criteria. Median DAP was 100 Gy.cm2 for aneurysm coiling procedures, 259 Gy.cm2 for arteriovenous malformation (AVM) embolisation procedures, 87 Gy.cm2 for stroke thrombolysis/thrombectomy, and 74 Gy.cm2 for four-vessel angiography. One hundred and nine aneurysm coiling procedures were further studied. Six significant variables were assessed using stepwise regression analysis to determine effect on DAP. Aneurysm location (anterior vs posterior circulation) had the single biggest effect (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

This paper confirms variable radiation exposures during neurointerventional procedures. The 75th percentile (used to define diagnostic reference levels) of DAP measurements represents a reasonable guidance metric for monitoring purposes. Results indicate that aneurysm location has the greatest impact on dose during coiling procedures and that anterior and posterior circulation coiling procedures should have separate diagnostic reference levels.

Key Points

Dose-tracking software is useful for monitoring patient radiation dose during neurointerventional procedures

This paper provides a template for methodology applicable to any interventional suite

Local diagnostic reference levels were defined by using the 75th percentile of DAP as per International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations

Aneurysm location is the biggest determinant of radiation dose during coiling procedures.

Anterior and posterior circulation coiling procedures should have separate diagnostic reference levels.

Keywords

Radiation exposure Intracranial aneurysm Cerebral angiography Intracranial arteriovenous malformation Thrombectomy 

Abbreviations

AVM

Arteriovenous malformation

DAP

Dose-area product

DRL

Diagnostic reference level

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

IRCP

International Commission on Radiological Protection

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Owen J O’Connor.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise (C.O’T.).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Lin N, Cahill KS, Frerichs KU, Friedlander RM, Claus EB (2012) Treatment of ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms in the USA: a paradigm shift. J Neurointerv Surg 4:182–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Schueler BA, Wagner LK, Strauss KJ, Vano E (2010) Clinical radiation management for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Radiology 257:321–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB et al (2009) Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:S263–S273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE et al (2003) Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part II: skin dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:977–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Authors on behalf of ICRP, Stewart FA, Akleyev AV et al (2012) ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs—threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 41:1–322Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Available via: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/CELEX-32013L0059-EN-TXT.pdf
  7. 7.
    Broughton J, Cantone MC, Ginjaume M, Shah B, Czarwinski R (2015) Implications in dosimetry of the implementation of the revised dose limit to the lens of the eye. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 164:70–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seals KF, Lee EW, Cagnon CH, Al-Hakim RA, Kee ST (2016) Radiation-induced cataractogenesis: a critical literature review for the interventional radiologist. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 39:151–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirova G, Georgiev E, Zasheva C, St Georges A (2015) Dose tracking and radiology department management. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 165:62–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexander MD, Oliff MC, Olorunsola OG, Brus-Ramer M, Nickoloff EL, Meyers PM (2010) Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic interventional neuroradiology procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2:6–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rehani MM, Frush DP, Berris T, Einstein AJ (2012) Patient radiation exposure tracking: worldwide programs and needs—results from the first IAEA survey. Eur J Radiol 81:e968–e976CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kemerink GJ, Frantzen MJ, Oei K et al (2002) Patient and occupational dose in neurointerventional procedures. Neuroradiology 44:522–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bor D, Cekirge S, Turkay T et al (2005) Patient and staff doses in interventional neuroradiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117:62–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanchez RM, Vano E, Fernandez JM, Moreu M, Lopez-Ibor L (2014) Brain radiation doses to patients in an interventional neuroradiology laboratory. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35:1276–1280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faulkner K, Christofides S, Lillicrap S, Horton P, Malone J (2012) Criteria for the acceptability of radiological equipment. Radiation protection no. 162. European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balter S, Miller D, Vano E et al (2008) A pilot study exploring the possibility of establishing guidance levels in x-ray directed interventional procedures. Med Phys 35:673–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balter S, Rosenstein M, Miller DL, Schueler B, Spelic D (2011) Patient radiation dose audits for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Med Phys 38:1611–1618CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ICRP (2017) Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. ICRP Publication 135. Ann ICRP 46(1)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aroua A, Rickli H, Stauffer JC et al (2007) How to set up and apply reference levels in fluoroscopy at a national level. Eur Radiol 17:1621–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE et al (2003) Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:711–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IAEA (2013) Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in medical imaging. Available via: https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/1_Radiology/Optimization/diagnostic-reference-levels.htm. Accessed 13 Nov 17
  22. 22.
    Kwon D, Little MP, Miller DL (2011) Reference air kerma and kerma-area product as estimators of peak skin dose for fluoroscopically guided interventions. Med Phys 38:4196–4204CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleetwood IG, Steinberg GK (2002) Arteriovenous malformations. Lancet 359:863–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berman MF, Sciacca RR, Pile-Spellman J et al (2000) The epidemiology of brain arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 47:389–396 discussion 397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Villablanca JP, Achiriolaie A, Hooshi P et al (2005) Aneurysms of the posterior circulation: detection and treatment planning using volume-rendered three-dimensional helical computerized tomography angiography. J Neurosurg 103:1018–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Villablanca JP, Duckwiler GR, Jahan R et al (2013) Natural history of asymptomatic unruptured cerebral aneurysms evaluated at CT angiography: growth and rupture incidence and correlation with epidemiologic risk factors. Radiology 269:258–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schievink WI, Wijdicks EF, Piepgras DG, Chu CP, O'Fallon WM, Whisnant JP (1995) The poor prognosis of ruptured intracranial aneurysms of the posterior circulation. J Neurosurg 82:791–795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fischer S, Vajda Z, Aguilar Perez M et al (2012) Pipeline embolization device (PED) for neurovascular reconstruction: initial experience in the treatment of 101 intracranial aneurysms and dissections. Neuroradiology 54:369–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller DKD, Bonavia G (2009) Reference levels of patient radiation doses in interventional radiology. Radiology 253:753–764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson PB, Borrego D, Balter S, Johnson K, Siragusa D, Bolch WE (2011) Skin dose mapping for fluoroscopically guided interventions. Med Phys 38:5490–5499CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    (2017) EUCLID—European study on clinical diagnostic reference levels for X-ray medical imaging. ESR EuroSafe Imaging. Available via: http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/euclid

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holly Acton
    • 1
  • Karl James
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard G. Kavanagh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Colm O’Tuathaigh
    • 1
  • Deirdre Moloney
    • 2
  • Gerald Wyse
    • 2
  • Noel Fanning
    • 2
  • Michael Maher
    • 1
    • 2
  • Owen J. O’Connor
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of MedicineUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyCork University HospitalCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations