Radiation Exposure during Neurointerventional Procedures in Modern Biplane Angiographic Systems: A Single-Site Experience.

Q1 Medicine
Interventional Neurology Pub Date : 2017-10-01 Epub Date: 2017-02-11 DOI:10.1159/000456622
Ameer E Hassan, Sophie Amelot
{"title":"Radiation Exposure during Neurointerventional Procedures in Modern Biplane Angiographic Systems: A Single-Site Experience.","authors":"Ameer E Hassan,&nbsp;Sophie Amelot","doi":"10.1159/000456622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Per the ALARA principle, reducing the dose delivered to both patients and staff must be a priority for endovascular therapists, who should monitor their own practice. We evaluated patient exposure to radiation during common neurointerventions performed with a recent flat-panel detector angiographic system and compared our results with those of recently published studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All consecutive patients who underwent a diagnostic cerebral angiography or intervention on 2 modern flat-panel detector angiographic biplane systems (Innova IGS 630, GE Healthcare, Chalfont St Giles, UK) from February to November 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Dose-area product (DAP), cumulative air kerma (CAK) per plane, fluoroscopy time (FT), and total number of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) frames were collected, reported as median (interquartile range), and compared with the previously published literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 755 consecutive cases were assessed in our institution during the study period, including 398 diagnostic cerebral angiographies and 357 interventions. The DAP (Gy × cm<sup>2</sup>), fontal and lateral CAK (Gy), FT (min), and total number of DSA frames were as follows: 43 (33-60), 0.26 (0.19-0.33), 0.09 (0.07-0.13), 5.6 (4.2-7.5), and 245 (193-314) for diagnostic cerebral angiographies, and 66 (41-110), 0.46 (0.25-0.80), 0.18 (0.10-0.30), 18.3 (9.1-30.2), and 281 (184-427) for interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our diagnostic cerebral angiography group had a lower median and was in the 75th percentile of DAP and FT when compared with the published literature. For interventions, both DAP and number of DSA frames were significantly lower than the values reported in the literature, despite a higher FT. Subgroup analysis by procedure type also revealed a lower or comparable DAP.</p>","PeriodicalId":46280,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000456622","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000456622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Background and purpose: Per the ALARA principle, reducing the dose delivered to both patients and staff must be a priority for endovascular therapists, who should monitor their own practice. We evaluated patient exposure to radiation during common neurointerventions performed with a recent flat-panel detector angiographic system and compared our results with those of recently published studies.

Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent a diagnostic cerebral angiography or intervention on 2 modern flat-panel detector angiographic biplane systems (Innova IGS 630, GE Healthcare, Chalfont St Giles, UK) from February to November 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Dose-area product (DAP), cumulative air kerma (CAK) per plane, fluoroscopy time (FT), and total number of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) frames were collected, reported as median (interquartile range), and compared with the previously published literature.

Results: A total of 755 consecutive cases were assessed in our institution during the study period, including 398 diagnostic cerebral angiographies and 357 interventions. The DAP (Gy × cm2), fontal and lateral CAK (Gy), FT (min), and total number of DSA frames were as follows: 43 (33-60), 0.26 (0.19-0.33), 0.09 (0.07-0.13), 5.6 (4.2-7.5), and 245 (193-314) for diagnostic cerebral angiographies, and 66 (41-110), 0.46 (0.25-0.80), 0.18 (0.10-0.30), 18.3 (9.1-30.2), and 281 (184-427) for interventions.

Conclusion: Our diagnostic cerebral angiography group had a lower median and was in the 75th percentile of DAP and FT when compared with the published literature. For interventions, both DAP and number of DSA frames were significantly lower than the values reported in the literature, despite a higher FT. Subgroup analysis by procedure type also revealed a lower or comparable DAP.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

现代双翼血管造影系统在神经介入过程中的辐射暴露:单部位经验。
背景和目的:根据ALARA原则,减少给病人和工作人员的剂量必须是血管内治疗师的首要任务,他们应该监督自己的实践。我们评估了患者在使用平板血管造影系统进行普通神经干预时的辐射暴露情况,并将我们的结果与最近发表的研究结果进行了比较。方法:回顾性分析2015年2月至11月在2台现代平板血管造影双翼系统(Innova IGS 630, GE Healthcare, Chalfont St Giles, UK)上连续接受诊断性脑血管造影或干预的所有患者。收集剂量面积积(DAP)、每平面累积空气kerma (CAK)、透视时间(FT)和数字减影血管造影(DSA)帧总数,报告为中位数(四分位数范围),并与先前发表的文献进行比较。结果:在研究期间,我院共评估了755例连续病例,其中诊断性脑血管造影398例,干预357例。诊断性脑血管造影的DAP (Gy × cm2)、额侧CAK (Gy)、FT (min)和DSA总帧数分别为43(33-60)、0.26(0.19-0.33)、0.09(0.07-0.13)、5.6(4.2-7.5)和245(193-314),干预组为66(41-110)、0.46(0.25-0.80)、0.18(0.10-0.30)、18.3(9.1-30.2)和281(184-427)。结论:与已发表的文献相比,我们的诊断性脑血管造影组DAP和FT的中位数较低,处于第75百分位。对于干预措施,尽管FT较高,但DAP和DSA帧数均显著低于文献报道的值。按手术类型进行的亚组分析也显示DAP较低或相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Interventional Neurology
Interventional Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信