Comparison of the radiation dose in a cardiac IVR X-ray system.

In this study, the entrance surface dose rates received by a phantom during cineangiography and fluoroscopy were compared. The X-ray conditions used in the measurements were those normally used in facilities performing percutaneous coronary intervention. Although, today, the entrance surface doses (cineangiography and fluoroscopy) of X-ray equipment used for cardiac interventional radiology (IVR) tends to be lower than they were previously, some equipment produces a high radiation dose. Therefore, the X-ray equipment used for cardiac IVR procedures must be maintained in good repair and must be carefully calibrated. In addition, periodic measurement of the radiation dose from the X-ray equipment used for both cineangiography and fluoroscopy for cardiac IVR is necessary. If the radiation dose of the X-ray system in use is too high, the IVR staff should determine the reason and make an effort to reduce it. Hence, the IVR staff must be adequately trained in radiation protection.

Does digital acquisition reduce patients' skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures? An experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: It is necessary to reduce the exposure doses from both fluoroscopy and angiocardiography. Pulsed fluoroscopy clearly reduces patients' exposure. By contrast, whether digital acquisition reduces patients' exposure is not clear. This study simulated the skin radiation doses of patients in cardiac catheterization laboratories with various radiography systems used in percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty to determine whether digital acquisition reduces patient exposure as compared with cine film recording. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The entrance surface doses with cineangiography and fluoroscopy of acrylic phantoms were compared for 11 radiography systems at seven facilities; each performs more than 100 cardiac intervention procedures per year. The entrance surface dose for an acrylic plate (20 cm thick) was measured using a skin-dose monitor. RESULTS: The maximum dose exceeded the minimum dose by 6.44 times for cineangiography and by 3.42 times for fluoroscopy. The entrance surface dose with acrylic plate was lower with digital-only acquisition (mean +/- SD, 3.07 +/- 0.84 mGy/sec) than with film recording (6.00 +/- 3.04 mGy/sec). By contrast, the entrance surface frame dose, after correction for the cine frame rate, tended to be higher with digital acquisition than with film recording (0.210 +/- 0.053 vs 0.179 +/- 0.058 mGy/frame, respectively). CONCLUSION. The entrance surface dose was approximately 50% less with digital-only acquisition than with film recording. However, after correcting the dose for cine frame rate, filmless acquisition did not in itself reduce the exposure. For the surface dose to be reduced for cardiac interventional radiography, even with digital filmless radiography systems, a low recording speed is necessary for angiocardiography.