[Patient absorbed dose in coronary angiography determined by the flat panel digital detector X-ray system]

Comparing ovarian radiation doses in flat-panel and conventional angiography during uterine artery embolization: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a minimally invasive procedure performed under fluoroscopy for the treatment of uterine fibroids and accompanied by radiation exposure.

Objectives

To compare ovarian radiation doses during uterine artery embolization (UAE) in patients using conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) with those using digital flat-panel technology.

Patients and Methods

Thirty women who were candidates for UAE were randomly enrolled for one of the two angiographic systems. Ovarian doses were calculated according to in-vitro phantom study results using entrance and exit doses and were compared between the two groups.

Results

The mean right entrance dose was 1586±1221 mGy in the conventional and 522.3±400.1 mGy in the flat panel group (P=0.005). These figures were 1470±1170 mGy and 456±396 mGy, respectively for the left side (P=0.006). The mean right exit dose was 18.8±12.3 for the conventional and 9.4±6.4 mGy for the flat panel group (P=0.013). These figures were 16.7±11.3 and 10.2±7.2 mGy, respectively for the left side (P=0.06). The mean right ovarian dose was 139.9±92 in the conventional and 23.6±16.2 mGy in the flat panel group (P<0.0001). These figures were 101.7±77.6 and 24.6±16.9 mGy, respectively for the left side (P=0.002).

Conclusion

Flat panel system can significantly reduce the ovarian radiation dose during UAE compared with conventional DSA.

[The comparison between dose rates at the interventional reference point of the angiography systems in many facilities]

The management of the radiation dose is very important in interventional radiology (IVR), especially in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, we measured entrance surface doses at the interventional reference point of 27 cardiac intervention procedures in 22 cardiac catheterization laboratories around Hiroshima, and compared these doses. Recently, for cardiac interventional radiology, the X-ray machines using flat-panel detectors (FPD) instead of image intensifiers (I.I.) is increasing; 13 systems used FPD and 14 systems used I.I. For fluoroscopy rate, the difference between laboratories was 9 times. For cineangiography rate, the difference between laboratories was 7 times. In addition, between both devices, the I.I. group is bigger than the FPD group. When comparing by the same condition, for the dose at the interventional reference point, no significant difference was detected between the FPD group and the I.I. group. This study shows that FPD is not available for reducing the radiation dose simply. Therefore, it is necessary that we think of the balance with image quality and radiation dose. The optimization of the devices and cardiac intervention procedures becomes very important.

Radiation Dose to Patients and Radiologists During Transcatheter Arterial Embolization: Comparison of a Digital Flat-Panel System and Conventional Unit

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the exposure doses to patients and radiologists during transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a new angiographic unit with a digital flat-panel system.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Doses were assessed for 24 procedures: 12 using a new unit with a digital flat-panel system and 12 using a conventional unit. Doses to patients' skin were evaluated with thermoluminescent dosimeters behind the left, middle, and right portions of the liver. The doses to the radiologists were measured by an electronic personal dosimeter placed on the chest outside a lead protector. The maximal skin doses to the patients and the dose equivalents, Hp(0.07), to the radiologists were compared between the two procedure groups with each angiographic unit.

RESULTS

For procedures with the new unit, the mean maximal skin dose to the patients was 284 +/- 127 (SD) mGy (range, 130-467 mGy), and Hp(0.07) to the radiologists was 62.8 +/- 17.4 muSv. For procedures with the conventional unit, the maximal skin dose to the patients was 1,068 +/- 439 mGy (range, 510-1,882 mGy), and Hp(0.07) to the radiologists was 68.4 +/- 25.7 muSv. The maximal skin dose to the patients was significantly lower with the new unit than with the conventional unit (p < 0.0005). There was no significant difference in the Hp(0.07) to the radiologists between the two procedure groups.

CONCLUSION

The new digital flat-panel system for angiographic imaging can reduce the radiation dose to patients' skin during TAE for HCC as compared with the conventional system.

Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? A pilot study and review of the literature

The potential for decreasing patient dose is one of the main arguments for the justification of the cost of digital imaging equipment. However, the literature review with respect to patient doses using digital imaging modalities, presents conflicting results. During this study, patients' entrance surface doses were measured for three simple radiographic examinations, in European centres equipped with a computed radiography digital system. Results showed that doses between centres varied from 30% for chest LAT to 250% for chest PA examination. With the digital image quality criteria still under discussion, and with the post-processing parameters and/or image documentations varying, any dose comparisons between conventional/digital systems, as well as dose comparisons between different centre using digital units, are difficult. Clinical trials are required in order to define reference levels associated with quality of digital image necessary to address specific clinical requirements.