Skip to main content
Log in

Strategies for Minimizing Occupational Radiation Exposure in Cardiac Imaging

  • Nuclear Cardiology (V Dilsizian, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Radiation safety has been at the center of interest of both researchers and healthcare institutions. This review will summarize and shed light on the various techniques adapted to reduce staff exposure to ionizing radiation (IR) in the field of cardiac imaging.

Recent Findings

In the last years, with the advance of awareness and the development of new technologies, there have been several tools and techniques adapted. The breakthrough of several technologies to lower radiation dose and shorten the duration of diagnostic tests associated with IR, the use of protection devices by staff members, and mostly the awareness of exposure to IR are the hallmark of these advances. Using all these measures has led to a significant decrease in staff exposure to IR.

Summary

Reducing staff exposure to meet the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” principle is feasible. This review introduces the most important strategies applied in cardiac imaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Sokolov M, Neumann R. Global gene expression alterations as a crucial constituent of human cell response to low doses of ionizing radiation exposure. Int J Mol Sci. 1990;17(1):55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Einstein AJ. Effects of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging: how good are the data? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(6):553–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. •• Laskey WK, Feinendegen LE, Neumann RD, Laskey WK, Feinendegen LE, Neumann RD. Low-level ionizing radiation from noninvasive cardiac imaging : can we extrapolate estimated risks from epidemiologic data to the clinical setting ? JCMG. 2010;3(5):517–24 This publication is of major importance to the understanding of the true impact of IR in the imaging field.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Einstein AJ. Beyond the bombs: cancer risks of low-dose medical radiation. Lancet (London, England). 2012;380(9840):455–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lindner O et al., “Nuclear cardiology practice and associated radiation doses in Europe : results of the IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study ( INCAPS ) for the 27 European countries,” 2015.

  6. A. M. Association, “Comparison of radiation doses and best-practice use for myocardial perfusion imaging in US and non-US Laboratories:€€findings from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study,” pp. 2015–2017, 2016.

  7. Falk RH, Rubinow A, Cohen AS. Cardiac arrhythmias in systemic amyloidosis: correlation with echocardiographic abnormalities. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;3(1):107–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Voluntary work, Australia,” vol. 253, no. 2, p. 64, 2011.

  9. Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, Dixon RL, Ferrari VA, Gomes AS, 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 Radi. Circulation. 2009;119(7):1056–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. • Hill KD, Einstein AJ. New approaches to reduce radiation exposure. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015;26:55–65 This is an important summary of latest developments in radiation safety.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chareonthaitawee P, Beanlands RS, Chen W, Dorbala S, Miller EJ, Murthy VL, et al. Joint SNMMI–ASNC expert consensus document on the role of18F-FDG PET/CT in cardiac sarcoid detection and therapy monitoring. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24(5):1741–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Terasaki F, Yoshinaga K. New guidelines for diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis in Japan. Ann Nucl Cardiol. 2017;3(1):42–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Habib G et al., Ghid de management al endocarditei infecţioase 2015, vol. 26, no. 3. 2016.

  14. Datz FL, Seabold JE, Brown ML, Forstrom LA, Greenspan BS, McAfee J, et al. Procedure guideline for technetium-99m-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte scintigraphy for suspected infection/inflammation. Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1997;38(6):987–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, Cammilleri S, Mancini J, Tessonnier L, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular18F- fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(23):2374–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. A. M. Association, “Estimating the reduction in the radiation burden from nuclear cardiology through use of stress-only imaging in the United States and worldwide,” pp. 1–4, 2016.

  17. Doukky R, Hayes K, Frogge N, Balakrishnan G, Dontaraju VS, Rangel MO, et al. Impact of appropriate use on the prognostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. Circulation. 2013;128(15):1634–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Picano E, Vano E. The radiation issue in cardiology: the time for action is now. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2011;9(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McIlwain EF, Coon PD, Einstein AJ, Mitchell CKC, Natello GW, Palma RA, et al. Radiation safety for the cardiac sonographer: recommendations of the radiation safety writing group for the council on cardiovascular sonography of the American society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27(8):811–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lindner O et al., “Nuclear cardiology practice and associated radiation doses in Europe: results of the IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study (INCAPS) for the 27 European countries.”

  21. • Hobbs JB, Goldstein N, Lind KE, Elder D, Dodd GD, Borgstede JP. Physician knowledge of radiation exposure and risk in medical imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(1):34–43 This publication is of importance; it emphasizes the need for IR exposure awareness which is a major factor in reducing exposure.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Faggioni L, Paolicchi F, Bastiani L, Guido D, Caramella D. Awareness of radiation protection and dose levels of imaging procedures among medical students, radiography students, and radiology residents at an academic hospital: results of a comprehensive survey. Eur J Radiol. 2017;86:135–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sheng AY, Breaud AH, Schneider JI, Kadom N, Mitchell PM, Linden JA. Interactive learning module improves resident knowledge of risks of ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2016;45(4):258–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bosanquet DC, Green G, Bosanquet AJ, Galland RB, Gower-Thomas K, Lewis MH. Doctors’ knowledge of radiation - a two-centre study and historical comparison. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(8):748–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mercuri M, Pascual TNB, Mahmarian JJ, Shaw LJ, Rehani MM, Paez D, et al. Comparison of radiation doses and best-practice use for myocardial perfusion imaging in US and non-US laboratories. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):266–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cousins C, Miller DL, Bernardi G, Rehani MM, Schofield P, Vañó E, et al. ICRP publication 120: radiological protection in cardiology. Ann ICRP. 2013;42(1):1–125.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hawk C, Hyland J, Rupert R, Colonvega M, and Hall S, “[ No title ],” Chiropr Osteopat, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res. 2007;167(4):396–416.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Saifi S, Taylor AJ, Allen J, Hendel R. The use of a learning community and online evaluation of utilization for spect myocardial perfusion imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(7):823–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Abdelaal E, Plourde G, MacHaalany J, Arsenault J, Rimac G, Déry JP, et al. Effectiveness of low rate fluoroscopy at reducing operator and patient radiation dose during transradial coronary angiography and interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(5):567–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chambers CE, et al. Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77(4):546–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Picano E, Vano E, Domenici L, Bottai M, Thierry-chef I. Cancer and non-cancer brain and eye effects of chronic low-dose ionizing radiation exposure. BMC Cancer. 2012;12(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alazzoni A, et al. Randomized controlled trial of radiation protection with a patient lead shield and a novel , nonlead surgical cap for operators performing coronary angiography or intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(8):e002384. pp. 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bartal G, Sailer AM, Vano E. Should we keep the lead in the aprons ? Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;21(1):2–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bekker RJ, Van Hattum JC, Wykrzykowska JJ, Vis MM, Koch KT, and De Winter RJ, “Cardiac catheterization efficacy of the RADPAD protection drape in reducing operators ’ radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory,” pp. 1–7, 2017.

  36. Politi L, et al. Reduction of scatter radiation during transradial percutaneous coronary angiography : a randomized trial using a lead-free radiation shield. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79:97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Massalha S, Lugassi R, Raysberg E, Koskosi A, Lechtenberg G, Israel O, et al. Evaluation of staff radiation exposure during transthoracic echocardiography close to myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018;31:763–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Slomka PJ, Berman DS, Germano G. New cardiac cameras: single-photon emission CT and PET. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44(4):232–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Piccinelli M, Garcia EV. Advances in software for faster procedure and lower radiotracer dose myocardial perfusion imaging. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57(6):579–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Sedlmair M, Manka R, Plass A, Schmidt B, et al. Optimizing radiation dose by using advanced modelled iterative reconstruction in high-pitch coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):459–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Depuey EG, “MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS IN NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY / CME ARTICLE Advances in SPECT camera software and hardware : currently available and new on the horizon,” pp. 551–581.

  42. Einstein AJ, Pascual TN, Mercuri M, Karthikeyan G, Vitola JV, Mahmarian JJ, et al. Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices andradiationexposure: results from the 65country IAEA nuclear cardiology protocols cross-sectional study (INCAPS). Eur Heart J. 2015;36(26):1689–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lindner O, et al. Nuclear cardiology practice and associated radiation doses in Europe: results of the IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study (INCAPS) for the 27 European countries. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(4):718–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dwyer DJ, Camacho DM, Kohanski MA, Callura JM, and Collins JJ, “NIH Public Access,” vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 561–572, 2013.

  45. Sharir T, Ben-Haim S, Merzon K, Prochorov V, Dickman D, Ben-Haim S, et al. High-speed myocardial perfusion imaging. Initial clinical comparison with conventional dual detector anger camera imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(2):156–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bocher M, Blevis IM, Tsukerman L, Shrem Y, Kovalski G, Volokh L. A fast cardiac gamma camera with dynamic SPECT capabilities: design, system validation and future potential. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(10):1887–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Imbert L, Poussier S, Franken PR, Songy B, Verger A, Morel O, et al. Compared performance of high-sensitivity cameras dedicated to myocardial perfusion SPECT: a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human images. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(12):1897–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. De Las Marinas MD, Sanz ML, Ferrer M, Oehling A. Spontaneous in vitro IgE synthesis: modifications induced by immunotherapy. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1993;3(4):178–81.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gimelli A, et al. Comparison between ultrafast and standard single-photon emission CT in patients with coronary artery disease a pilot study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(1):51–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Knes K, Machac J, Krynyckyi BR, and Almeida OD, “82 Rb myocardial perfusion pet imaging,” vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1350–1357, 2003.

  51. Kastrati M, Langenbrink L, Piatkowski M, Michaelsen J, Reimann D, Hoffmann R. Reducing radiation dose in coronary angiography and angioplasty using image noise reduction technology. Am J Cardiol. 2015;118(3):353–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Duvall WL, et al. Reduction in occupational and patient radiation exposure imaging and high-efficiency SPECT camera technology. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(8):1251–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Szymanski CJ, et al. HHS public access. Biomaterials. 2016;62(3):147–54.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Meghzifene A, Vano E, Le Heron J, Cheung KY. Roles and responsibilities of medical physicists in radiation protection. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(1):24–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samia Massalha.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Samia Massalha Aws Almufleh, Garry Small, Brian Marvin, Zohar Keidar, and John A. Kennedy declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ora Israel reports being a consultant for General Electric Healthcare.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nuclear Cardiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Massalha, S., Almufleh, A., Small, G. et al. Strategies for Minimizing Occupational Radiation Exposure in Cardiac Imaging. Curr Cardiol Rep 21, 71 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1157-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1157-1

Keywords

Navigation