Fluoroscopy time is not accurate as a surrogate for radiation exposure

Abstract

Objective

The Food and Drug Administration and the Vascular Quality Initiative still utilize fluoroscopy time as a surrogate marker for procedural radiation exposure. This study demonstrates that fluoroscopy time does not accurately represent radiation exposure and that dose area product and air kerma are more appropriate measures.

Methods

Lower extremity endovascular interventions (N = 145) between 2013 and 2015 performed at an academic medical center on a Siemens Artis-Zee floor mounted c-arm were identified. Data was collected from the summary sheet after every case. Scatter plots with Pearson correlation coefficients were created. A strong correlation was indicated by an r value approaching 1.

Results

Overall mean AK and DAP was 380.27 mGy and 4919.2 µGym². There was a poor correlation between fluoroscopy time and total AK or DAP (r = 0.27 and 0.32). Total DAP was strongly correlated to cine DAP and fluoroscopy DAP (r = 0.92 vs. 0.84). The number of DSA runs and average frame rate did not affect AK or DAP levels. Mean magnification level was significantly correlated with total AK (r = 0.53).

Conclusions

Fluoroscopy time shows minimal correlation with radiation delivered and therefore is a poor surrogate for radiation exposure during fluoroscopy procedures. DAP and AK are more suitable markers to accurately gauge radiation exposure.

Keywords

Radiation exposure fluoroscopy time endovascular intervention air kerma dose area product

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Goodney

Beck

Nagle

et al.

National trends in lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions, and major amputations. J Vasc Surg 2009; 50: 54–60.

Kirkwood

Arbique

Guild

et al.

Radiation-induced skin injury after complex endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg 2014; 60: 742–748.

Walsh

Cousins

Tang

et al.

Ionizing radiation in endovascular interventions. J Endovasc Ther 2008; 15: 680–687.

NCRP Report No. 168. Radiation dose management for fluoroscopically guided interventional medical procedures. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2011.

Fetterly

Mathew

Lennon

et al.

Radiation dose reduction in the invasive cardiovascular laboratory: implementing a culture and philosophy of radiation safety. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2012; 5: 866–873.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Public health advisory. Avoidance of serious X-ray-induced skin injuries to patients during fluoroscopically guided procedures. Rockville, MD: Center for devices and radiologic health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/MedicalX-Rays/UCM116677.pdf (1994, accessed 10 February 2017).

Pantos

Patatoukas

Katritsis

et al.

Patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology procedures. Curr Cardiol Rev 2009; 5: 1–11.

Fazel

Krumholz

Wang

SMY

et al.

Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Eng J Med 2009; 361: 849–857.

Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. Care+Clear: improving image quality and optimizing dose in every Artis system, http://www.healthcare.siemens.com/angio/innovations-technologies/care-clear (2016, accessed 10 February 2017).

10.

Bannazadeh

Altinel

Kashyap

et al.

Patterns of procedure-specific radiation exposure in the endovascular era: impetus for further innovation. J Vasc Surg 2009; 49: 1520–1524.

11.

Harrison

Oshin

Vallabhaneni

et al.

Surveillance after EVAR based on duplex ultrasound and abdominal radiography. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 42: 187–192.

12.

Hoshina

Kato

Miyahara

et al.

A retrospective study of intravascular ultrasound use in patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair: its usefulness and a description of the procedure. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010; 40: 559–563.

13.

McNally

Scali

Feezor

et al.

Three-dimensional fusion compute tomography decreases radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast use during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg 2015; 61: 309–316.

14.

Monastiriotis

Comito

Labropoulos

. Radiation exposure in endovascular repair of abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2015; 62: 753–761.

15.

Howells

Eaton

Patel

et al.

Risk of radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2012; 43: 393–397.

16.

Majewska

Stanisic

Klos

et al.

Patients’ radiation doses during thoracic stent-graft implantation: the problem of long-lasting procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93: 465–472.

17.

Majewska

Blaszak

Juszkat

et al.

Patients’ radiation doses during the implantation of stents in carotid, renal, iliac, femoral and popliteal arteries. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41: 372–377.

18.

Shope

. Radiation-induced skin injuries from fluoroscopy. Radiographics 1996; 16: 1195–1199.