Search

Introduction: Interventional radiology procedures are associated with high skin dose exposure. The 2013/59/ EURATOM Directive establishes that the equipment used for interventional radiology must have a device or a feature informing the practitioner of relevant parameters for assessing patient dose at the end of the procedure. This work presents and validates PyMCGPU-IR, a patient dose monitoring tool for interventional cardiology and radiology procedures based on MC-GPU. MC-GPU is a freely available Monte Carlo (MC) code of photon transport in a voxelized geometry which uses the computational power of commodity Graphics Processing Unit cards (GPU) to accelerate calculations. Methodologies: PyMCGPU-IR was validated against two different experimental set-ups. The first one consisted of skin dose measurements for different beam angulations on an adult Rando Alderson anthropomorphic phantom. The second consisted of organ dose measurements in three clinical procedures using the Rando Alderson phantom. Results: The results obtained for the skin dose measurements show differences below 6%. For the clinical procedures the differences are within 20% for most cases. Conclusions: PyMCGPU-IR offers both, high performance and accuracy for dose assessment when compared with skin and organ dose measurements. It also allows the calculation of dose values at specific positions and organs, the dose distribution and the location of the maximum doses per organ. In addition, PyMCGPU-IR overcomes the time limitations of CPU-based MC code, Peer Reviewed, Postprint (updated version)

The use of patient contact-shielding has become a topic of intensive scientific debate. While it has been common practice during the last decades, some studies have questioned the efficiency of using such shielding while others have highlighted the inconsistencies in its application. The objective of this work is to review current recommendations and legislative documents on the use of out-of-field shielding in X-ray imaging, including those from national authorities and from international and national organisations and professional bodies. The review, performed within the framework of the activities of EURADOS Working Group 12, covers available recommendations on use of contact shielding in adult, pregnant and paediatric patients in general radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography, mammography and dental radiology. It includes a comprehensive search of 83 documents from 32 countries and 6 international organisations over the last 39 years. In general, using shielding is recommended only under two conditions: if it does not compromise the diagnostic task and the performance of the procedure and/or if it reassures the patient and comforters that they are appropriately protected against potentially harmful effects of radiation. There are very few specific regulatory requirements to use shielding in a particular imaging modality, although they may consider use of shielding either as part of good radiological practice or as requirements for availability of protective or ancillary tools, without further specification of their use. There is a wide variety of positions among documents that recommend out-of-field shielding, those that do not recommend it and those that are not specific. Therefore, evidence-based consensus is still needed to ensure best and consistent practice.

Optimizing patient exposure in interventional cardiology is key to avoid skin injuries.PurposeTo establish predictive models of peak skin dose (PSD) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO), and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures.Material and MethodsA total of 534 PCI, 219 CTO, and 209 TAVI were collected from 12 hospitals in eight European countries. Independent associations between PSD and clinical and technical dose determinants were examined for those procedures using multivariate statistical analysis. A priori and a posteriori predictive models were built using stepwise multiple linear regressions. A fourfold cross-validation was performed, and models? performance was evaluated using the root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), coefficient of determination (R²), and linear correlation coefficient (r).ResultsMultivariate analysis proved technical parameters to overweight clinical complexity indices with PSD mainly affected by fluoroscopy time, tube voltage, tube current, distance to detector, and tube angulation for PCI. For CTO, these were body mass index, tube voltage, and fluoroscopy contribution. For TAVI, these parameters were sex, fluoroscopy time, tube voltage, and cine acquisitions. When benchmarking the predictive models, the correlation coefficients were r?=?0.45 for the a priori model and r?=?0.89 for the a posteriori model for PCI. These were 0.44 and 0.67, respectively, for the CTO a priori and a posteriori models, and 0.58 and 0.74, respectively, for the TAVI a priori and a posteriori models.ConclusionA priori predictive models can help operators estimate the PSD before performing the intervention while a posteriori models are more accurate estimates and can be useful in the absence of skin dose mapping solutions

The use of patient contact-shielding has become a topic of intensive scientific debate. While it has been common practice during the last decades, some studies have questioned the efficiency of using such shielding while others have highlighted the inconsistencies in its application. The objective of this work is to review current recommendations and legislative documents on the use of out-of-field shielding in X-ray imaging, including those from national authorities and from international and national organisations and professional bodies. The review, performed within the framework of the activities of EURADOS Working Group 12, covers available recommendations on use of contact shielding in adult, pregnant and paediatric patients in general radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography, mammography and dental radiology. It includes a comprehensive search of 83 documents from 32 countries and 6 international organisations over the last 39 years. In general, using shielding is recommended only under two conditions: if it does not compromise the diagnostic task and the performance of the procedure and/or if it reassures the patient and comforters that they are appropriately protected against potentially harmful effects of radiation. There are very few specific regulatory requirements to use shielding in a particular imaging modality, although they may consider use of shielding either as part of good radiological practice or as requirements for availability of protective or ancillary tools, without further specification of their use. There is a wide variety of positions among documents that recommend out-of-field shielding, those that do not recommend it and those that are not specific. Therefore, evidence-based consensus is still needed to ensure best and consistent practice.

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been available since the late 1990s for use in dentistry. European legislation requires optimisation of protection and the use of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) as well as regular quality control (QC) of the imaging devices, which is well outlined in existing international recommendations. Nevertheless, the level of application is not known. Earlier studies have indicated that few European countries have established DRLs and that patient doses (exposure parameters) have not been properly optimised. The EURADOS Working Group 12-Dosimetry in Medical Imaging undertook a survey to identify existing practices in Member States. Questionnaires were developed to identify equipment types, clinical procedures performed, and exposure settings used. The surveys were circulated to 22 countries resulting in 28 responses from 13 countries. Variations were identified in the exposure factors and in the doses delivered to patients for similar clinical indicators. Results confirm that patient doses are still not properly optimised and DRLs are largely not established. There is a need to promote the importance of performing QC testing of dental CBCT equipment and to further optimise patient exposure by establishment and use of DRLs as a part of a continuous optimisation process.

Patients can be exposed to high skin doses during complex interventional cardiology (IC) procedures.PurposeTo identify which clinical and technical parameters affect patient exposure and peak skin dose (PSD) and to establish dose reference levels (DRL) per clinical complexity level in IC procedures.Material and MethodsValidation and Estimation of Radiation skin Dose in Interventional Cardiology (VERIDIC) project analyzed prospectively collected patient data from eight European countries and 12 hospitals where percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), chronic total occlusion PCI (CTO), and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures were performed. A total of 62 clinical complexity parameters and 31 technical parameters were collected, univariate regressions were performed to identify those parameters affecting patient exposure and define DRL accordingly.ResultsPatient exposure as well as clinical and technical parameters were collected for a total of 534 PCI, 219 CTO, and 209 TAVI. For PCI procedures, body mass index (BMI), number of stents ≥2, and total stent length >28?mm were the most prominent clinical parameters, which increased the PSD value. For CTO, these were total stent length >57?mm, BMI, and previous anterograde or retrograde technique that failed in the same session. For TAVI, these were male sex, BMI, and number of diseased vessels. DRL values for Kerma-area product (PKA), air kerma at patient entrance reference point (Ka,r), fluoroscopy time (FT), and PSD were stratified, respectively, for 14 clinical parameters in PCI, 10 in CTO, and four in TAVI.ConclusionPrior knowledge of the key factors influencing the PSD will help optimize patient radiation protection in IC.

PurposeIn interventional cardiology, patients may be exposed to high doses to the skin resulting in skin burns following single or multiple procedures. Reviewing and analysing available software (online or offline) may help medical physicists assessing the maximum skin dose to the patient together with the dose distribution during (or after) these procedures.Method and resultsCapabilities and accuracy of available software were analysed through an extensive bibliography search and contacts with both vendor and authors. Their markedly differed among developers. In total, 22 software were identified and reviewed according to their algorithms and their capabilities. Special attention was dedicated to their main features and limitations of interest for the intended clinical use. While the accuracy of the 12 software products validated with measurements on phantoms was acceptable (within ± 25%), the agreement was poor for the two products validated on patients (within ± 43% and ± 76%, respectively). In addition, no software has been validated on angiographic units from all manufacturers, though several software developers claimed vendor-independent transportability. Only one software allows for multiple procedures dose calculation.ConclusionLarge differences among vendors made it clear that work remains to be done before an accurate and reliable skin dose mapping is available for all patients.

PurposeIn interventional cardiology, patients may be exposed to high doses to the skin resulting in skin burns following single or multiple procedures. Reviewing and analysing available software (online or offline) may help medical physicists assessing the maximum skin dose to the patient together with the dose distribution during (or after) these procedures.Method and resultsCapabilities and accuracy of available software were analysed through an extensive bibliography search and contacts with both vendor and authors. Their markedly differed among developers. In total, 22 software were identified and reviewed according to their algorithms and their capabilities. Special attention was dedicated to their main features and limitations of interest for the intended clinical use. While the accuracy of the 12 software products validated with measurements on phantoms was acceptable (within ± 25%), the agreement was poor for the two products validated on patients (within ± 43% and ± 76%, respectively). In addition, no software has been validated on angiographic units from all manufacturers, though several software developers claimed vendor-independent transportability. Only one software allows for multiple procedures dose calculation.ConclusionLarge differences among vendors made it clear that work remains to be done before an accurate and reliable skin dose mapping is available for all patients.

info:eu-repo/semantics/published