Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: progress report of the Multispecialty Occupational Health Group

Radiation Safety Perceptions and Practices Among Pediatric Anesthesiologists: A Survey of the Physician Membership of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pediatric anesthesiologists are exposed to ionizing radiation from x-rays on an almost daily basis. Our goal was to determine the culture of safety in which they work and how they adhere to preventative strategies that minimize exposure risk in their daily practice.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board waiver and approval of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia's research and quality and safety committees, an electronic e-mail questionnaire was sent to the Society's physician, nontrainee members and consisted of questions specific to provider use of protective lead shielding, the routine use of dosimeters, and demographic information. Univariate analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal variables, the Fisher exact test for categorical variables, and the Spearman test to analyze correlation between 2 ordinal variables, while a proportional odds logistic regression was used for a multivariable ordinal outcome analysis. P values of <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Twenty-one percent (674/3151) of the surveyed anesthesiologists completed the online questionnaire. Radiation exposure is ubiquitous (98.7%), and regardless of sex, most respondents were either concerned or very concerned about radiation exposure (76.8%); however, women were significantly more concerned than men (proportional odds ratio, 1.66 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.31]; P = .002). Despite this and independent of sex, level of concern was not associated with use of a radiation dosimeter (P = .85), lead glasses (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-2.39]; P = 1.0), or a thyroid shield (P = .12). Dosimeters were rarely (13%) or never used (52%) and were mandated in only 28.5% of institutions. Virtually none of the respondents had ever taken a radiation safety course, received a personal radiation dose report, notification of their radiation exposure, or knew how many millirem/y was considered safe. Half of the respondents were female, and while pregnant, 73% (151/206) tried to avoid radiation exposure by requesting not to be assigned to cases requiring x-rays. These requests were honored 78% (160/206) of the time.

DISCUSSION

Despite universal exposure to ionizing radiation from x-rays, pediatric anesthesiologists do not routinely adhere to strategies designed to limit the intensity of this exposure and rarely work in institutions in which a culture of radiation safety exists. Our study highlights the need to improve radiation safety education, the need to change the safety culture within the operating rooms and imaging suites, and the need to more fully investigate the utility of dosimeters, lead shielding, and eye safety measures in pediatric anesthesia practice.

Radiation dose reduction during neurointerventional procedures by modification of default settings on biplane angiography equipment

BACKGROUND

Neurointerventional procedures represent a significant source of ionizing radiation. We sought to assess the effect during neurointerventional procedures of varying default rates of radiation dose in fluoroscopy (F) and image acquisition (IA) modes, and frame rates during cine acquisition (CINE) on total X-ray dose, acquisition exposures, fluoroscopy time, and complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed procedures performed with two radiation dose and CINE settings: a factory setting dose cohort (30 patients, F 45 nGy/pulse, IA 3.6 μGy/pulse, factory CINE frame rate) and a reduced dose cohort (30 patients, F 32 nGy/pulse, IA 1.2 μGy/pulse, with a decreased CINE frame rate). Total radiation dose, dose area product, number of acquisition exposures, fluoroscopy time, and complications were compared between the groups. Means comparisons (t tests) were employed to evaluate differences in the outcome variables between the two groups. p Value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The reduced dose cohort had a significant reduction in mean radiation dose (factory, 3650 mGy; reduced, 1650 mGy; p=0.005) and dose area product (factory, 34 700 μGy×m(2); reduced, 15 000 μGy×m(2); p=0.02). There were no significant differences between cohorts in acquisition exposure (p=0.73), fluoroscopy time (p=0.45), or complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant reductions in radiation dose delivered by neurointerventional procedures can be achieved through simple modifications of default radiation dose in F and IA and frame rate during CINE without an increase in procedural complexity (fluoroscopy time) or rate of complications.