Advertisement

Radiation Protection

  • Aris Karatasakis
  • Barbara A. Danek
  • Emmanouil S. Brilakis
Chapter

Abstract

The harmful effects of ionizing radiation on both interventional cardiology patients and staff have been well documented. Minimizing ionizing radiation exposure to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) is essential. This effort begins with education on radiation safety and protection, which must be an integral part of a comprehensive radiation protection program at each facility. Appropriate dosimetry practices must be encouraged. Operator behavior modification, such as use of the fluoroscopy store function, low-frame-rate fluoroscopy and acquisition imaging, and avoidance of radiation-intensive X-ray beam angles can significantly reduce radiation dose. Appropriate shielding provides significant protection from scatter radiation and should be universally utilized. X-ray equipment must be regularly updated and maintained, and should be configured in cooperation with a medical physicist to emit the minimum amount of radiation required to produce images of adequate quality for clinical use. Novel technologies, such as devices that provide audiovisual feedback on radiation utilization and robotic percutaneous coronary intervention systems, have the potential to change the future of occupational radiation protection and are evolving rapidly.

References

  1. 1.
    Ciraj-Bjelac O, Rehani M, Minamoto A, Sim KH, Liew HB, Vano E. Radiation-induced eye lens changes and risk for cataract in interventional cardiology. Cardiology. 2012;123:168–71.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000342458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111:1368–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leuraud K, Richardson DB, Cardis E, Daniels RD, Gillies M, O'Hagan JA, et al. Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2:e276–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00094-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Gargani L, Sabatino L, Borghini A, Faita F, et al. Subclinical carotid atherosclerosis and early vascular aging from long-term low-dose ionizing radiation exposure: a genetic, telomere, and vascular ultrasound study in cardiac catheterization laboratory staff. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:616–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.12.233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christopoulos G, Papayannis AC, Alomar M, Christakopoulos GE, Kotsia A, Michael TT, et al. Determinants of operator and patient radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization: insights from the RadiCure (Radiation Reduction During Cardiac Catheterization Using Real-Time Monitoring) trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26341.
  6. 6.
    Duran A, Hian SK, Miller DL, Le Heron J, Padovani R, Vano E. Recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:29–42.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.24694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christopoulos G, Makke L, Christakopoulos G, Kotsia A, Rangan BV, Roesle M, et al. Optimizing radiation safety in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a practical approach. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:291–301.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brilakis ES. Manual of coronary chronic total occlusion interventions: a step-by-step approach. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chambers CE, Fetterly KA, Holzer R, Lin PJ, Blankenship JC, Balter S, et al. Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77:546–56.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22867.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dagres N, Haude M, Kurreck S, Baumgart D, Erbel R. The EchoMap system: online integration of intracoronary ultrasound and Doppler images into angiographic images during cardiac catheterization. Influence on radiation exposure and procedure parameters. J Interv Cardiol. 2004;17:321–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2004.00355.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duran A, Hian SK, Miller DL, Le Heron J, Padovani R, Vano E. A summary of recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81:562–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.24520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walters TE, Kistler PM, Morton JB, Sparks PB, Halloran K, Kalman JM. Impact of collimation on radiation exposure during interventional electrophysiology. Europace. 2012;14:1670–3.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eus095.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davies AG, Gislason-Lee AJ, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Lupton M, Moore J, et al. Does the use of additional X-ray beam filtration during cine acquisition reduce clinical image quality and effective dose in cardiac interventional imaging? Radiat Prot Dosim. 2014;162:597–604.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncu020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fetterly KA. Investigation of the practical aspects of an additional 0.1 mm copper X-ray spectral filter for cine acquisition mode imaging in a clinical care setting. Health Phys. 2010;99:624–30.  https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3181d96964.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simard T, Hibbert B, Natarajan MK, Mercuri M, Hetherington SL, Wright R, et al. Impact of center experience on patient radiation exposure during transradial coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention: a patient-level, international, collaborative, multi-center analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e003333.  https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.003333.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Plourde G, Pancholy SB, Nolan J, Jolly S, Rao SV, Amhed I, et al. Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386:2192–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00305-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marque N, Jegou A, Varenne O, Salengro E, Allouch P, Margot O, et al. Impact of an extension tube on operator radiation exposure during coronary procedures performed through the radial approach. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;102:749–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2009.09.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Politi L, Biondi-Zoccai G, Nocetti L, Costi T, Monopoli D, Rossi R, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilligan P, Lynch J, Eder H, Maguire S, Fox E, Doyle B, et al. Assessment of clinical occupational dose reduction effect of a new interventional cardiology shield for radial access combined with a scatter reducing drape. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:935–40.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Behan M, Haworth P, Colley P, Brittain M, Hince A, Clarke M, et al. Decreasing operators’ radiation exposure during coronary procedures: the transradial radiation protection board. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plourde G, Abdelaal E, MacHaalany J, Rimac G, Poirier Y, Arsenault J, et al. Comparison of radiation exposure during transradial diagnostic coronary angiography with single- or multi-catheters approach. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26851.
  22. 22.
    Pancholy SB, Joshi P, Shah S, Rao SV, Bertrand OF, Patel TM. Effect of vascular access site choice on radiation exposure during coronary angiography: the REVERE trial (Randomized Evaluation of Vascular Entry Site and Radiation Exposure). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1189–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.03.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sciahbasi A, Romagnoli E, Burzotta F, Trani C, Sarandrea A, Summaria F, et al. Transradial approach (left vs right) and procedural times during percutaneous coronary procedures: TALENT study. Am Heart J. 2011;161:172–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sciahbasi A, Romagnoli E, Trani C, Burzotta F, Sarandrea A, Summaria F, et al. Operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures through the left or right radial approach: the TALENT dosimetric substudy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:226–31.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.961185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Agarwal S, Parashar A, Bajaj NS, Khan I, Ahmad I, Heupler FA Jr, et al. Relationship of beam angulation and radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:558–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.12.203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agarwal S, Parashar A, Ellis SG, Heupler FA Jr, Lau E, Tuzcu EM, et al. Measures to reduce radiation in a modern cardiac catheterization laboratory. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:447–55.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuon E, Dahm JB, Empen K, Robinson DM, Reuter G, Wucherer M. Identification of less-irradiating tube angulations in invasive cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1420–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schueler B, Fetterly KA, Balter S. Radiation safety during cardiovascular procedures. In: Topol EJ, Teirstein PS, editors. Textbook of interventional cardiology. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2015. p. 119–28.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wittkampf FH, Wever EF, Vos K, Geleijns J, Schalij MJ, van der Tol J, et al. Reduction of radiation exposure in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2000;23:1638–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maeder M, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Wolber T, Ammann P, Roelli H, Rohner F, et al. Impact of a lead glass screen on scatter radiation to eyes and hands in interventional cardiologists. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;67:18–23.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20457.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fetterly KA, Magnuson DJ, Tannahill GM, Hindal MD, Mathew V. Effective use of radiation shields to minimize operator dose during invasive cardiology procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:1133–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2011.05.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shorrock D, Christopoulos G, Wosik J, Kotsia A, Rangan B, Abdullah S, et al. Impact of a disposable sterile radiation shield on operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:313–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murphy JC, Darragh K, Walsh SJ, Hanratty CG. Efficacy of the RADPAD protective drape during real world complex percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:1408–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alazzoni A, Gordon CL, Syed J, Natarajan MK, Rokoss M, Schwalm JD, 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:e002384.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lange HW, von Boetticher H. Reduction of operator radiation dose by a pelvic lead shield during cardiac catheterization by radial access: comparison with femoral access. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:445–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2011.12.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Musallam A, Volis I, Dadaev S, Abergel E, Soni A, Yalonetsky S, et al. A randomized study comparing the use of a pelvic lead shield during trans-radial interventions: threefold decrease in radiation to the operator but double exposure to the patient. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85:1164–70.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25777.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roguin A, Musallam A, Rappaport B. Response to comment on “a randomized study comparing the use of a pelvic lead shield during trans-radial interventions: threefold decrease in radiation to the operator but double exposure to the patient”. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:960.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lichliter A, Weir V, Heithaus RE, Gipson S, Syed A, West J, et al. Clinical evaluation of protective garments with respect to garment characteristics and manufacturer label information. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.08.006.
  39. 39.
    Badawy MK, Deb P, Chan R, Farouque O. A review of radiation protection solutions for the staff in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Heart Lung Circ. 2016;25:961–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2016.02.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Valentin J. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Ann ICRP. 2000;30:7–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marichal DA, Anwar T, Kirsch D, Clements J, Carlson L, Savage C, et al. Comparison of a suspended radiation protection system versus standard lead apron for radiation exposure of a simulated interventionalist. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:437–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.12.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fattal P, Goldstein JA. A novel complete radiation protection system eliminates physician radiation exposure and leaded aprons. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:11–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.24625.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Rooijen BD, de Haan MW, Das M, Arnoldussen CW, de Graaf R, van Zwam WH, et al. Efficacy of radiation safety glasses in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37:1149–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0766-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McVey S, Sandison A, Sutton DG. An assessment of lead eyewear in interventional radiology. J Radiol Prot. 2013;33:647–59.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/33/3/647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reeves RR, Ang L, Bahadorani J, Naghi J, Dominguez A, Palakodeti V, et al. Invasive cardiologists are exposed to greater left sided cranial radiation: the BRAIN study (Brain Radiation Exposure and Attenuation During Invasive Cardiology Procedures). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1197–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.03.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Karadag B, Ikitimur B, Durmaz E, Avci BK, Cakmak HA, Cosansu K, et al. Effectiveness of a lead cap in radiation protection of the head in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. EuroIntervention. 2013;9:754–6.  https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV9I6A120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Uthoff H, Pena C, West J, Contreras F, Benenati JF, Katzen BT. Evaluation of novel disposable, light-weight radiation protection devices in an interventional radiology setting: a randomized controlled trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:915–20.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8830.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Uthoff H, Quesada R, Roberts JS, Baumann F, Schernthaner M, Zaremski L, et al. Radioprotective lightweight caps in the interventional cardiology setting: a randomised controlled trial (PROTECT). EuroIntervention. 2015;11:53–9.  https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV11I1A9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weisz G, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, Delgado JA, Marshall JJ, Vetrovec GW, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1596–600.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.045.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mahmud E, Dominguez A, Bahadorani J. First-in-human robotic percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88:565–70.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Christopoulos G, Christakopoulos GE, Rangan BV, Layne R, Grabarkewitz R, Haagen D, et al. Comparison of radiation dose between different fluoroscopy systems in the modern catheterization laboratory: results from bench testing using an anthropomorphic phantom. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:927–32.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fetterly KA, Mathew V, Lennon R, Bell MR, Holmes DR Jr, Rihal CS. Radiation dose reduction in the invasive cardiovascular laboratory: implementing a culture and philosophy of radiation safety. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:866–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2012.05.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Abdelaal E, Plourde G, MacHaalany J, Arsenault J, Rimac G, Dery 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;7:567–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.02.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wassef AW, Hiebert B, Ravandi A, Ducas J, Minhas K, Vo M, et al. Radiation dose reduction in the cardiac catheterization laboratory utilizing a novel protocol. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:550–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.11.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pyne CT, Gadey G, Jeon C, Piemonte T, Waxman S, Resnic F. Effect of reduction of the pulse rates of fluoroscopy and CINE-acquisition on x-ray dose and angiographic image quality during invasive cardiovascular procedures. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:441–6.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001479.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hansen JW, Foy A, Schmidt T, Ghahramani M, Chambers CE. Fluoroscopy pulse rate reduction during diagnostic and therapeutic imaging in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: an evaluation of radiation dose, procedure complications and outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26555.
  57. 57.
    Hirshfeld JW Jr, Balter S, Brinker JA, Kern MJ, Klein LW, Lindsay BD, 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. Circulation. 2005;111:511–32.  https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000157946.29224.5D.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kuon E, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W, Dorr M, Hummel A, Riad A, et al. Multicenter long-term validation of a minicourse in radiation-reducing techniques in the catheterization laboratory. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115:367–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.043.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kuon E, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W, Dorr M, Reffelmann T, Hummel A, et al. Efficacy of a minicourse in radiation-reducing techniques in invasive cardiology: a multicenter field study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:382–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.11.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Katz A, Shtub A, Solomonica A, Poliakov A, Roguin A. Simulator Training to minimize ionizing radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-016-1009-7.
  61. 61.
    ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    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. ICRP publication 118. Ann ICRP. 2012;41:1–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2012.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Christopoulos G, Papayannis AC, Alomar M, Kotsia A, Michael TT, Rangan BV, et al. Effect of a real-time radiation monitoring device on operator radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization: the Radiation Reduction During Cardiac Catheterization Using Real-Time Monitoring Study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:744–50.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001974.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    ICRP. Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP publication 84. Ann ICRP. 2000;30:1.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Best PJ, Skelding KA, Mehran R, Chieffo A, Kunadian V, Madan M, et al. SCAI consensus document on occupational radiation exposure to the pregnant cardiologist and technical personnel. EuroIntervention. 2011;6:866–74.  https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV6I7A148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Picano E, Vano E. The radiation issue in cardiology: the time for action is now. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2011;9:35.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-7120-9-35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248:254–63.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071451.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kim KP, Miller DL, Balter S, Kleinerman RA, Linet MS, Kwon D, et al. Occupational radiation doses to operators performing cardiac catheterization procedures. Health Phys. 2008;94:211–27.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000290614.76386.35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Venneri L, Rossi F, Botto N, Andreassi MG, Salcone N, Emad A, et al. Cancer risk from professional exposure in staff working in cardiac catheterization laboratory: insights from the National Research Council’s Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report. Am Heart J. 2009;157:118–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ainsbury EA, Bouffler SD, Dorr W, Graw J, Muirhead CR, Edwards AA, et al. Radiation cataractogenesis: a review of recent studies. Radiat Res. 2009;172:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1667/RR1688.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jacob S, Boveda S, Bar O, Brezin A, Maccia C, Laurier D, et al. Interventional cardiologists and risk of radiation-induced cataract: results of a French multicenter observational study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:1843–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.04.124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    CTAHRFETLLOI Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vano E, Gonzalez L, Fernandez JM, Alfonso F, Macaya C. Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: a 15-year follow-up. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:383–8.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/26829723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Balter S. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology. 2010;254(2):326–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Roguin A. Seeing is believing: finding new solutions to radiation exposure in our work routine. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(8):e935–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aris Karatasakis
    • 1
  • Barbara A. Danek
    • 1
  • Emmanouil S. Brilakis
    • 2
  1. 1.VA North Texas Health Care System and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Division of CardiologyDallasUSA
  2. 2.Minneapolis Heart InstituteMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations