Therapeutic angiographic procedures: differences in dose area product between analog image intensifier and digital flat panel detector

Impact of the Endonaut® Angio-Navigation System on Radiation Exposure in Endovascular Aortic Repair Performed with Mobile C-Arms

BACKGROUND

Fusion imaging systems have proved to reduce radiation exposure mostly in hybrid rooms but reports with mobile C-arms are few. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the Endonaut navigation system on radiation exposure in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed with mobile C-arms.

METHODS

All patients undergoing EVAR and/or iliac branched devices implantation between January 2016 and August 2022 were included. All procedures were performed with a mobile C-arm (Siemens Avantic or GE Elite until March 2018, Siemens Cios Alpha thereafter). The Endonaut navigation system has been used since January 2021. Two groups were, therefore, compared: before (control group [CGr]) and after the use of Endonaut. Radiation data including Dose Area Product (DAP) values, Air Kerma (AK) and fluoroscopy time (FT) were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

Overall, 153 patients were included: CGr, n = 121; Endonaut group (EnGr), n = 32. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups regarding demographic data. DAP values were significantly lower in the EnGr (38 Gy cm2 ± 24) vs. the CGr (76 Gy cm2 ± 51) (P < 0.05) despite a significantly higher number of complex procedures such as iliac branched devices (P < 0.05). AK values were not significantly different between the EnGr and the CGr (196 mGy ±114 vs. 209 mGy ±138) as well as FT (33 minutes ±18 vs. 33 minutes ±16). Technical success was 97% (31/32) in the EnGr vs. 96% (116/121) in the CGr (P = 0.79). The volume of contrast media was significantly lower in the EnGr (94 cc ± 41) vs. the CGr (143 cc ± 66) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the use of the Endonaut angio-navigation system when performing EVAR with mobile C-arms led to a radiation dose reduction without compromising technical success or procedural time.

Do Flat Panel Detector C-Arms Decrease Radiation Exposure Compared to Conventional Image Intensifiers?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the radiation dose and image quality between flat panel detector (FPD) and traditional image intensifier (II) C-arms at their lowest radiation settings.

METHODS

In a ureteroscopy simulation using a cadaver model, the radiation exposure was compared between FPD and II at 4 pulses-per-second (pps) using both low dose and automatic exposure control (AEC) settings. Additionally, the lowest dose settings for each machine were compared (4 pps with low dose in the FPD and 1 pps with low dose in the II). Five trials of 5 minutes were conducted for each setting. Four new optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters were used in each trial to record radiation exposure. Ten blinded urologists completed a survey rating image quality for each setting.

RESULTS

When comparing the FPD and II at their lowest possible settings, the FPD produced significantly more radiation (P <.05). Using both machines at 4 pps in low dose mode resulted in no significant difference between C-arms (P >.05). Conversely, operating the C-arms at 4 pps and AEC resulted in significantly higher radiation exposure from the FPD compared to the II (P <.05). There was no significant difference in image quality at each setting.

CONCLUSION

FPDs produce significantly more radiation at the lowest settings compared to IIs. Surgeons should employ IIs when reducing radiation exposure as low as possible is imperative, such as when operating on pediatric and pregnant patients.

Local dose reference levels during transarterial chemoembolization procedure

The aim of this study was to develop local diagnostic reference levels (LDRL) during Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This cross-sectional study reports radiation dose indicators of 108 patients in a Mexican hospital, obtained over a period of 35 months. Kerma-area product (P_KA), air-kerma at the reference point (K_{a, r}), and descriptive statistical analysis were examined according to sociodemographic characteristics of the sample patients. The LDRL obtained were then compared to a similar international framework. The present study contributes to the establishment of a TACE LDRL and identifies significant correlations among radiology factors and dosimetric quantities obtained.

Flat Panel Detector c-Arms Are Associated with Dramatically Reduced Radiation Exposure During Ureteroscopy and Produce Superior Images

Background: We wished to determine whether newly available flat panel detector (FPD) c-arms were (1) associated with lower radiation dose during ureteroscopy (URS) than conventional image intensifier (CII) c-arms and (2) to compare fluoroscopic image quality between the units. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients undergoing URS at a pediatric hospital, with c-arms assigned by availability in the operating room. We performed dosimetry experiments using the same c-arms on standard phantoms. Results: Patient and case characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups of patients. The median dose in the FPD group was less than a quarter of the dose in the CII group, 0.48 [0.42, 0.97] mGy vs 2.2 [1.1, 3.8] mGy, p < 0.0001. The FPD dose remained at less than one-third of the CII dose accounting for any difference in fluoroscopy time, and remained significant in a multivariate model including fluoroscopy time and patient weight (β = 2.4, p = 0.007). Phantom studies showed higher image quality for FPDs at all simulated patient sizes, even at lower radiation doses. Conclusions: This is the first report comparing radiation dose from c-arms of image intensifiers and FPDs in adults or children. Use of an FPD during URS was associated with a substantially decreased absorbed dose for patients while simultaneously improving image quality.

Patient radiation exposure from embolo-sclerotherapy of peripheral vascular malformations

OBJECTIVE

Embolo-sclerotherapy (EST) is the mainstay therapy for peripheral vascular malformations that involves the exposure of patients to ionizing radiation. We analyzed the radiation exposure to patients from EST of peripheral vascular malformations during a 5-year period in a single specialist center.

METHODS

All patients who had undergone EST at a single specialist center for peripheral vascular malformations from January 1, 2013 to January 8, 2018 were identified from a prospectively collected database. Data collection included basic demographics, procedure date, anatomic site, type of vascular malformations, and procedural details. Radiation exposure, measured as the dose-area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time, of all patients who had undergone EST during the study period were retrospectively reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests for comparison between subgroups. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 237 patients (median age, 30 years; range, 1-73 years) had undergone 419 EST sessions during the study period. Of the 237 patients, 61 (25.7%) had had arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) and had undergone 140 EST sessions (33.4%) and 176 (74.3%) had had venous and lymphatic malformations and had undergone 279 EST sessions (66.6%). Patients with AVMs had undergone a median of 2 procedures (range, 1-13) compared with a median of 1 (range, 1-6) for venous and lymphatic malformations within the study period. The median DAP for the single and cumulative EST for peripheral vascular malformations was 1.26 Gycm² (range, 0.00-698.36 Gycm²) and 1.91 Gycm² (range, 0.00-1300.24 Gycm²), respectively. The median fluoroscopy time for single and cumulative EST was 19 seconds (range, 1-3846 seconds) and 30 seconds (range, 1-5843 seconds), respectively. Significantly greater patient radiation exposure, in DAP and fluoroscopy time, was measured for single and cumulative EST for AVMs compared with venous and lymphatic malformations (P < .01 for both; Mann-Whitney U test). A significant difference in DAP but not fluoroscopy time was found when the anatomic areas of vascular malformations were compared.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient radiation exposure for EST for peripheral vascular malformations, measured in DAP and fluoroscopy time, appeared to be generally less than that reported for endovascular arterial and deep venous interventions. However, some patients with peripheral vascular malformations received relatively high radiation doses. Further studies to investigate the risk factors and long-term side effects of radiation exposure in these patients and strategies to reduce these are required.

Investigation of reference levels and radiation dose associated with abdominal EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) procedures across several European Centres

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is considered the treatment of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysms with suitable anatomy. In order to improve radiation safety, European Directive (2013/59) requires member states to implement diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in radio-diagnostic and interventional procedures. This study aimed to determine local DRLs for EVAR across five European centres and identify an interim European DRL, which currently remains unestablished.

METHODS

Retrospective data was collected for 180 standard EVARs performed between January 2014 and July 2015 from five specialist centres in Ireland (n=2) and Italy (n=3). Data capture included: air kerma-area product (P_KA), total air kerma at the reference point (K_a,r), fluoroscopic time (FT), number of acquisitions, frame rate of acquisition, type of acquisition, patient height, weight, and gender.

RESULTS

The mean values for each site A, B, C, D, and E were: P_KAs of 4343 ± 994 μGym², 18,200 ± 2141 μGym², 11,423 ± 1390 μGym², 7796 ± 704 μGym², 31,897 ± 5798 μGym²; FTs of 816 ± 92 s, 950 ± 150 s, 708 ± 70 s, 972 ± 61 s, 827 ± 118 s; and number of acquisitions of 6.72 ± 0.56, 10.38 ± 1.54, 4.74 ± 0.19, 5.64 ± 0.36, 7.28 ± 0.65, respectively. The overall pooled 75th percentile P_KA was 15,849 μGym².

CONCLUSION

Local reference levels were identified. The pooled data has been used to establish an interim European DRL for EVAR procedures.

KEY POINTS

• Abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) requires the use of ionising radiation. • EVAR is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. • Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are used to monitor patient radiation exposure. • Radiation dose data was collected from five European centres for EVAR procedures. • Local DRLs have been determined and an interim European DRL is proposed.