Clinical Determinants of Radiation Dose in Percutaneous Coronary Interventional Procedures

Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions (Impact Factor: 7.35). 03/2011; 4(3):336-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.10.014
Source: PubMed


The objectives of this work were to establish the primary clinical determinants of patient radiation dose associated with percutaneous coronary interventional (PCI) and to identify opportunities for dose reduction.
Use of X-ray imaging and associated radiation dose is a necessary part of PCI. Potential adverse consequences of radiation dose include skin radiation injury and predicted increase in lifetime cancer risk.
Cumulative skin dose (CSD) (measured in gray [Gy] units) was selected as a measurement of patient radiation burden. Several patient-, disease-, and treatment-related variables, including 15 performing physicians, were analyzed in a multiple linear regression statistical model with cumulative skin dose CSD as the primary end point. The model results provide an estimate of the relative CSD increase (decrease) attributable to each variable.
Percutaneous coronary interventions performed on 1,287 male and 540 female patients were included. Median patient age was 68.6 years, median body mass index was 29.7 kg/m(2), and median weight was 88 kg. Median CSD was 1.64 Gy per procedure for male and 1.15 Gy for female patients. Increasing body mass index, patient sex, lesion complexity, lesion location, and performing physician were significantly associated with CSD. Physicians who performed more procedures were associated with lower CSD.
Several primary determinants of patient radiation dose during PCI were identified. Along with physician development of radiation-sparing methods and skills, pre-procedure dose planning is proposed to help minimize radiation dose for PCI.

Download full-text


Available from: Kenneth A Fetterly, Sep 12, 2014
19 Reads
  • Source
    JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 03/2011; 4(3):344-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2010.11.009 · 7.35 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transradial versus transfemoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2). Coronary angiography is most commonly performed via femoral artery access; however, the optimal approach in extremely obese (EO) patients remains unclear. Between January 2007 and August 2010, a cohort of consecutive EO patients who underwent coronary angiography was identified in our center's registry of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Of 21,103 procedures, 564 (2.7%) were performed in unique EO patients: 203 (36%) via the transradial approach; and 361 (64%) via the transfemoral approach. The primary outcome, a combined endpoint of major bleeding, access site complications, and nonaccess site complications, occurred in 7.5% of the transfemoral group and 2.0% of the transradial group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10 to 0.88, p = 0.029), an endpoint driven by reductions in major bleeding (3.3% vs. 0.0%, OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0 to 0.71, p = 0.015), as well as access site injuries (4.7% vs. 0.0%, OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0 to 0.48, p = 0.002). There were no differences in nonaccess site complications (1.7% vs. 2.0%, OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.41 to 5.55), but transradial access procedures were associated with an increase in procedure time and patient radiation dose (p < 0.05). Transfemoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with more bleeding and access site complications when compared with a transradial approach. Important reductions in procedural associated morbidity may be possible with a transradial approach in EO patients.
    JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 08/2012; 5(8):819-26. DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2012.04.009 · 7.35 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the effects of sustained practice and x-ray system technical changes on the radiation dose administered to adult patients during invasive cardiovascular procedures. It is desirable to reduce radiation dose associated with medical imaging to minimize the risk of adverse radiation effects to both patients and staff. Several clinical practice and technical changes to elevate radiation awareness and reduce patient radiation dose were implemented under the guidance of a cardiovascular invasive labs radiation safety committee. Practice changes included: intraprocedure radiation dose announcements; reporting of procedures for which the air-kerma exceeded 6,000 mGy, including procedure air-kerma in the clinical report; and establishing compulsory radiation safety training for fellows. Technical changes included establishing standard x-ray imaging protocols, increased use of x-ray beam spectral filters, reducing the detector target dose for fluoroscopy and acquisition imaging, and reducing the fluoroscopy frame rate to 7.5 s(-1). Patient- and procedure-specific cumulative skin dose was calculated from air-kerma values and evaluated retrospectively over a period of 3 years. Data were categorized to include all procedures, percutaneous coronary interventions, coronary angiography, noncardiac vascular angiography and interventions, and interventions to treat structural heart disease. Statistical analysis was based on a comparison of the cumulative skin dose for procedures performed during the first and last quarters of the 3-year study period. A total of 18,115 procedures were performed by 27 staff cardiologists and 65 fellows-in-training. Considering all procedures, the mean cumulative skin dose decreased from 969 to 568 mGy (40% reduction) over 3 years. This work demonstrates that a philosophy of radiation safety, implemented through a collection of sustained practice and x-ray system changes, can result in a significant decrease in the radiation dose administered to patients during invasive cardiovascular procedures.
    JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 08/2012; 5(8):866-73. DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2012.05.003 · 7.35 Impact Factor
Show more