President's page: The ACC encourages multi-pronged approach to radiation safety

Optimizing Transradial Access: Radiation, Contrast, Access Site Crossover, and Ergonomics

This article summarizes the data comparing radiation exposure and contrast use between transradial and transfemoral cardiac catheterizations. It also reviews the important features that may predict access site failure and crossover. In addition, it reviews the concept of ergonomics in the catheterization laboratory and how clinicians can improve the transradial approach.

Inappropriateness of cardiovascular radiological imaging testing; a tertiary care referral center study

AIMS

Radiological inappropriateness in medical imaging leads to loss of resources and accumulation of avoidable population cancer risk. Aim of the study was to audit the appropriateness rate of different cardiac radiological examinations.

METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

With a retrospective, observational study we reviewed clinical records of 818 consecutive patients (67 ± 12 years, 75% males) admitted from January 1-May 31, 2010 to the National Research Council - Tuscany Region Gabriele Monasterio Foundation cardiology division. A total of 940 procedures were audited: 250 chest x-rays (CXR); 240 coronary computed tomographies (CCT); 250 coronary angiographies (CA); 200 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). For each test, indications were rated on the basis of guidelines class of recommendation and level of evidence: definitely appropriate (A, including class I, appropriate, and class IIa, probably appropriate), uncertain (U, class IIb, probably inappropriate), or inappropriate (I, class III, definitely inappropriate). Appropriateness was suboptimal for all tests: CXR (A = 48%, U = 10%, I = 42%); CCT (A = 58%, U = 24%, I = 18%); CA (A = 45%, U = 25%, I = 30%); PCI (A = 63%, U = 15%, I = 22%). Top reasons for inappropriateness were: routine on hospital admission (70% of inappropriate CXR); first line application in asymptomatic low-risk patients (42% of CCT) or in patients with unchanged clinical status post-revascularization (20% of CA); PCI in patients either asymptomatic or with miscellaneous symptoms and without inducible ischemia on non-invasive testing (36% of inappropriate PCI).

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

Public healthcare system--with universal access paid for with public money--is haemorrhaging significant resources and accumulating avoidable long-term cancer risk with inappropriate cardiovascular imaging prevention.

Radiation-induced noncancer risks in interventional cardiology: optimisation of procedures and staff and patient dose reduction

Concerns about ionizing radiation during interventional cardiology have been increased in recent years as a result of rapid growth in interventional procedure volumes and the high radiation doses associated with some procedures. Noncancer radiation risks to cardiologists and medical staff in terms of radiation-induced cataracts and skin injuries for patients appear clear potential consequences of interventional cardiology procedures, while radiation-induced potential risk of developing cardiovascular effects remains less clear. This paper provides an overview of the evidence-based reviews of concerns about noncancer risks of radiation exposure in interventional cardiology. Strategies commonly undertaken to reduce radiation doses to both medical staff and patients during interventional cardiology procedures are discussed; optimisation of interventional cardiology procedures is highlighted.

The radiation issue in cardiology: the time for action is now

The "radiation issue" is the need to consider possible deterministic effects (e.g., skin injuries) and long-term cancer risks due to ionizing radiation in the risk-benefit assessment of diagnostic or therapeutic testing. Although there are currently no data showing that high-dose medical studies have actually increased the incidence of cancer, the "linear-no threshold" model in radioprotection assumes that no safe dose exists; all doses add up in determining cancer risks; and the risk increases linearly with increasing radiation dose. The possibility of deterministic effects should also be considered when skin or lens doses may be over the threshold. Cardiologists have a special mission to avoid unjustified or non-optimized use of radiation, since they are responsible for 45% of the entire cumulative effective dose of 3.0 mSv (similar to the radiological risk of 150 chest x-rays) per head per year to the US population from all medical sources except radiotherapy. In addition, interventional cardiologists have an exposure per head per year two to three times higher than that of radiologists. The most active and experienced interventional cardiologists in high volume cath labs have an annual exposure equivalent to around 5 mSv per head and a professional lifetime attributable to excess cancer risk on the order of magnitude of 1 in 100. Cardiologists are the contemporary radiologists but sometimes imperfectly aware of the radiological dose of the examination they prescribe or practice, which can range from the equivalent of 1-60 mSv around a reference dose average of 10-15 mSv for a percutaneous coronary intervention, a cardiac radiofrequency ablation, a multi-detector coronary angiography, or a myocardial perfusion imaging scintigraphy. A good cardiologist cannot be afraid of life-saving radiation, but must be afraid of radiation unawareness and negligence.