AN INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY INVESTIGATION: PATIENT EXPOSURE TO RADIATION AND INTER-OPERATOR VARIABILITY IN AN IRISH SETTING

Current status of diagnostic reference levels in interventional cardiology

Interventional cardiology provides indisputable benefits for patients but uses a substantial amount of ionising radiation. The diagnostic reference level (DRL) is the tool recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection to optimise imaging procedures. In this work, a review of studies dealing with radiation dose or recommending DRL values for interventional cardiology since 2010 is presented, providing quantitative and qualitative results. There are many published papers on coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention. The DRL values compiled for different continental regions are different: the DRL for CA is about 35 Gy cm²for Europe and 83 Gy cm²for North America. These differences emphasise the need to establish national DRLs considering different social and/or economic factors and the harmonisation of the survey methodology. Surveys with a large amount of data collected with the help of dose management systems provide more reliable information with less chance of statistical bias than those with a small amount of data. The complexity of procedures and improvements in technology are important factors that affect the radiation dose delivered to patients. There is a need for additional data on structural and electrophysiological procedures. The analysis of paediatric procedures is especially difficult because some studies present results split into age bands and others into weight bands. Diagnostic procedures are better described, but there is a great variety of therapeutic procedures with different DRL values (up to a factor of nine) and these require a dedicated review.

Establishment of national diagnostic reference levels for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in Thailand

PURPOSE

To establish national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Thailand for lesions of different complexity.

METHODS

Radiation dose quantity as kerma-area-product (KAP) and cumulative air-kerma at reference point (CAK) from 76 catheterization labs in 38 hospitals in PCI registry of Thailand was transferred online to central data management. Sixteen months data (May 2018 to August 2019) was analyzed. We also investigated role of different factors that influence radiation dose the most.

RESULTS

Analysis of 22,737 PCIs resulted in national DRLs for PCI of 91.3 Gy.cm² (KAP) and 1360 mGy (CAK). The NDRLs for KAP for type C, B2, B1 and A lesions were 106.8, 82.6, 67.9, and 45.3 Gy.cm² respectively and for CAK, 1705, 1247, 962, and 790 mGy respectively. Thus, as compared to lesion A, lesion C had more than double the dose and B2 had nearly 1.6 times and B1 had 1.2 times CAK. Our DRL values are lower than other Asian countries like Japan and Korea and are in the middle range of Western countries. University hospital had significantly higher dose than private or public hospital possibly because of higher load of complex procedures in university hospitals and trainees performing the procedures. Transradial approach showed lower doses than transfemoral approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multi-centric study established DRLs for PCIs which can act as reference for future studies. A hallmark of our study is establishment of reference levels for coronary lesions classified as per ACC/AHA and thus for different complexities.