Advertisement

How to Minimize Radiation Hazard and Prevent Contrast-Induced Nephropathy

  • Sang Min Park
  • Jung Rae ChoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Coronary angiography and intervention with a radiation generation device is the gold standard for diagnosing and treating coronary artery obstructive disease. The acquisition of a qualified image is considered the cornerstone for making an exact diagnosis and successful interventional procedure [1]. From the aspect of image quality, the general rule of X-ray is that the higher the dose, the better the image quality. However, higher radiation is limited by safety concerns [2]. There are numerous kinds of radiation toxicities related to exposure or susceptibility to radiation: skin erythema, cataracts, bone marrow suppression, sterility, and development of cancer or other adverse genetic alterations. For these reasons, radiation hazard has become an emerging health issue in the area of interventional cardiology. Especially during the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of chronic total occlusion (CTO), both the medical staff and patients would inevitably be at risk to higher radiation exposure than simple and less complicated interventional procedures. Multiple factors influence radiation exposure to medical staff: procedure complexity, radiation protection employed, individual patient’s anatomy, physician's experience and habits, as well as vascular access site [3–6]. In addition, there might be a considerable difference in emitted radiation dose between the type of angiography equipment including mainly X-ray machines and dose protocol. Therefore, an effort by the operators to reduce excessive radiation dose to a level that gives appropriate diagnostic image quality without excessive exposure is beneficial [7].

References

  1. 1.
    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(10009):2192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hwang J, Lee SY, Chon MK, Lee SH, Hwang KW, Kim JS, et al. Radiation exposure in coronary angiography: a comparison of cineangiography and fluorography. Korean Circ J. 2015;45(6):451–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sciahbasi A, Rigattieri S, Sarandrea A, Cera M, Di Russo C, Fedele S, et al. Operator radiation exposure during right or left transradial coronary angiography: a phantom study. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015;16(7):386–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu H, Jin Z, Jing L. Comparison of radiation dose to operator between transradial and transfemoral coronary angiography with optimised radiation protection: a phantom study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2014;158(4):412–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Georges JL, Livarek B, Gibault-Genty G, Aziza JP, Hautecoeur JL, Soleille H, et al. Reduction of radiation delivered to patients undergoing invasive coronary procedures. Effect of a programme for dose reduction based on radiation-protection training. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;102(12):821–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maccia C, Malchair F, Gobert I, Louvard Y, Lefevre T. Assessment of local dose reference values for recanalization of chronic total occlusions and other occlusions in a high-volume catheterization center. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(8):1179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deseive S, Chen MY, Korosoglou G, Leipsic J, Martuscelli E, Carrascosa P, et al. Prospective randomized trial on radiation dose estimates of CT angiography applying iterative image reconstruction: The PROTECTION V Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(8):888–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(9):1368–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Ponti R. Reduction of radiation exposure in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: lesson learned. World J Cardiol. 2015;7(8):442–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hildick-Smith DJ, Walsh JT, Lowe MD, Shapiro LM, Petch MC. Transradial coronary angiography in patients with contraindications to the femoral approach: an analysis of 500 cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;61(1):60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bashore TM, Balter S, Barac A, Byrne JG, Cavendish JJ, Chambers CE, et al. ACCF Task Force Members. 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions expert consensus document on cardiac catheterization laboratory standards update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus documents developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(24):2221–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kallinikou Z, Puricel SG, Ryckx N, Togni M, Baeriswyl G, Stauffer JC, et al. Radiation exposure of the operator during coronary interventions (from the RADIO Study). Am J Cardiol. 2016;118(2):188–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(11):1047–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shah B, Burdowski J, Guo Y, Velez de Villa B, Huynh A, Farid M, et al. Effect of left versus right radial artery approach for coronary angiography on radiation parameters in patients with predictors of transradial access failure. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118(4):477–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bracken JA, Mauti M, Kim MS, Messenger JC, Carroll JD. A radiation dose reduction technology to improve patient safety during cardiac catheterization interventions. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28(5):493–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). I. Experimental studies. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(10):2571–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). II. Clinical evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(11):2813–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Implementation of the principle of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) for medical and dental personnel. Bethesda (MD): NRCP report no. 107. http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/Press_Releases/107press.html
  19. 19.
    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. 2016;118(3):353–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Korean Society of Interventional Radiology. Guideline for reducing radiation exposure during interventional procedure. Korean Food and Drug Administration. 2014.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ebrahimi R, Uberoi A, Treadwell M, Sadrzadeh Rafie AH. Effect of low-frame invasive coronary angiography on radiation and image quality. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118(2):195–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyaci B, Yalçin R, Cengel A, Erdem O, Dörtlemez O, Dörtlemez H, et al. Evaluation of DNA damage in lymphocytes of cardiologists exposed to radiation during cardiac catheterization by the COMET ASSAY. Jpn Heart J. 2004;45(5):845–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park SM, Cho JR, Choi JH, Son JW, Hong KS. Comparison of effective radiation dose between low- and conventional-dose protocols in patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (Poster Presentation in ESC 2016). Eur Heart J. 2016;37:191–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kato M, Chida K, Sato T, Oosaka H, Tosa T, Munehisa M, et al. The necessity of follow-up for radiation skin injuries in patients after percutaneous coronary interventions: radiation skin injuries will often be overlooked clinically. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(9):1040–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Madder RD, VanOosterhout S, Mulder A, Elmore M, Campbell J, Borgman A, et al. Impact of robotics and a suspended lead suit on physician radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017;18(3):190–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:8–12.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E, Lasic Z, Iakovou I, Fahy M, et al. A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(7):1393–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cigarroa RG, Lange RA, Williams RH, Hillis LD. Dosing of contrast material to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with renal disease. Am J Med. 1989;86(6 Pt 1):649–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Laskey WK, Jenkins C, Selzer F, Marroquin OC, Wilensky RL, Glaser R, et al. Volume-to-creatinine clearance ratio: a pharmacokinetically based risk factor for prediction of early creatinine increase after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(7):584–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pavlidis AN, Jones DA, Sirker A, Mathur A, Smith EJ. Prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total coronary occlusions. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(6):844–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aguiar-Souto P, Ferrante G, Del Furia F, Barlis P, Khurana R, Di Mario C. Frequency and predictors of contrast-induced nephropathy after angioplasty for chronic total occlusions. Int J Cardiol. 2010;139(1):68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin YS, Fang HY, Hussein H, Fang CY, Chen YL, Hsueh SK. Predictors of contrast-induced nephropathy in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. 2014;9(10):1173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    ACT Investigators. Acetylcysteine for prevention of renal outcomes in patients undergoing coronary and peripheral vascular angiography: main results from the randomized Acetylcysteine for Contrast-induced nephropathy Trial (ACT). Circulation. 2011;124(11):1250–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cardiology, Chuncheon Sacred Heart HospitalHallym University College of MedicineChuncheonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Division of Cardiology, Kangnam Sacred Heart HospitalHallym University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations