Cardiac function may be compromised in patients with elevated blood cobalt levels secondary to metal-on-metal hip implants.

Aims: Elevated blood cobalt levels secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties are a suggested risk factor for developing cardiovascular complications including cardiomyopathy. Clinical studies assessing patients with MoM hips using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have found conflicting evidence of cobalt-induced cardiomyopathy. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an echocardiography measurement known to be more sensitive than LVEF when diagnosing early cardiomyopathies. The extent of cardiovascular injury, as measured by GLS, in patients with elevated blood cobalt levels has not previously been examined. Methods: A total of 16 patients with documented blood cobalt ion levels above 13 µg/l (13 ppb, 221 nmol/l) were identified from a regional arthroplasty database. They were matched with eight patients awaiting hip arthroplasty. All patients underwent echocardiography, including GLS, investigating potential signs of cardiomyopathy. Results: Patients with MoM hip arthroplasties had a mean blood cobalt level of 29 µg/l (495 nmol/l) compared to 0.01 µg/l (0.2 nmol/l) in the control group. GLS readings were available for seven of the MoM cohort, and were significantly lower when compared with controls (-15.5% vs -18% (MoM vs control); p = 0.025)). Pearson correlation demonstrated that GLS significantly correlated with blood cobalt level (r = 0.8521; p < 0.001). However, there were no differences or correlations for other echocardiography measurements, including LVEF (64.3% vs 63.7% (MoM vs control); p = 0.845). Conclusion: This study supports the hypothesis that patients with elevated blood cobalt levels above 13 µg/l in the presence of a MoM hip implant may have impaired cardiac function compared to a control group of patients awaiting hip arthroplasty. It is the first study to use the more sensitive parameter of GLS to assess for any cardiac contractile dysfunction in patients with a MoM hip implant and a normal LVEF. Larger studies should be performed to determine the potential of GLS as a predictor of cardiac complications in patients with MoM arthroplasties.

Developing, purchasing, implementing and monitoring AI tools in radiology: practical considerations. A multi-society statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR & RSNA.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones.This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools.Key points • The incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiological practice demands increased monitoring of its utility and safety.• Cooperation between developers, clinicians, and regulators will allow all involved to address ethical issues and monitor AI performance.• AI can fulfil its promise to advance patient well-being if all steps from development to integration in healthcare are rigorously evaluated.

Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR & RSNA.

Artificial intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. KEY POINTS.

Developing, purchasing, implementing and monitoring AI tools in radiology: Practical considerations. A multi-society statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR & RSNA.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools.

Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR and RSNA.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. This article is simultaneously published in Insights into Imaging (DOI 10.1186/s13244-023-01541-3), Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (DOI 10.1111/1754-9485.13612), Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (DOI 10.1177/08465371231222229), Journal of the American College of Radiology (DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.12.005), and Radiology: Artificial Intelligence (DOI 10.1148/ryai.230513). Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Radiology, Automation, Machine Learning Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. ©The Author(s) 2024. Editor's Note: The RSNA Board of Directors has endorsed this article. It has not undergone review or editing by this journal.

Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR & RSNA.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever­growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi­society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools.

New National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for hypertension: a review and comparison with the US and European guidelines.

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for hypertension management has recently been updated. This review article summaries the main recommendations in NICE guidelines, and compares them with the American and European guidelines. NICE and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend diagnosing hypertension at a higher level than the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA). NICE treats to less stringent targets than both the ACC/AHA and the ESC, while using similar, although non-combination pill based, treatment regimens.

Responsible AI practice and AI education are central to AI implementation: a rapid review for all medical imaging professionals in Europe.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transitioned from the lab to the bedside, and it is increasingly being used in healthcare. Radiology and Radiography are on the frontline of AI implementation, because of the use of big data for medical imaging and diagnosis for different patient groups. Safe and effective AI implementation requires that responsible and ethical practices are upheld by all key stakeholders, that there is harmonious collaboration between different professional groups, and customised educational provisions for all involved. This paper outlines key principles of ethical and responsible AI, highlights recent educational initiatives for clinical practitioners and discusses the synergies between all medical imaging professionals as they prepare for the digital future in Europe. Responsible and ethical AI is vital to enhance a culture of safety and trust for healthcare professionals and patients alike. Educational and training provisions for medical imaging professionals on AI is central to the understanding of basic AI principles and applications and there are many offerings currently in Europe. Education can facilitate the transparency of AI tools, but more formalised, university-led training is needed to ensure the academic scrutiny, appropriate pedagogy, multidisciplinarity and customisation to the learners' unique needs are being adhered to. As radiographers and radiologists work together and with other professionals to understand and harness the benefits of AI in medical imaging, it becomes clear that they are faced with the same challenges and that they have the same needs. The digital future belongs to multidisciplinary teams that work seamlessly together, learn together, manage risk collectively and collaborate for the benefit of the patients they serve.

The QuADRANT study: Current status and recommendations for improving uptake and implementation of clinical audit of medical radiological procedures in Europe. The radiotherapy perspective.

BACKGROUND: QuADRANT was a research project funded by the European Commission to evaluate clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe, with an emphasis on clinical audit as mandated within the BSSD (Basic Safety Standards Directive). AIM: Focusing on the QuADRANT objectives - to obtain an overview of European clinical audit activity; identify good practices, resources, barriers and challenges; provide guidance and recommendations going forwards; identify the potential for European Union action on quality and safety focusing on the field of radiotherapy. RESULTS: A pan-European survey, expert interviews and a literature review conducted within the framework of the QuADRANT project indicated that developments in national clinical audit infrastructure are required. While in radiotherapy, there is a strong tradition and high level of experience of dosimetry audits and well-established practice through the IAEA's QUATRO audits, few countries have a well-established comprehensive clinical audit programme or international/national initiatives on tumour specific clinical audits. Even if sparse, the experience from countries with established system of quality audits can be used as role-models for national professional societies to promote clinical audit implementation. However, resource allocation and national prioritisation of clinical audit are needed in many countries. National and international societies should take the initiative to promote and facilitate training and resources (guidelines, experts, courses) for clinical audits. Enablers used to enhance clinical audit participation are not widely employed. Development of hospital accreditation programmes can facilitate clinical audit uptake. An active and formalised role for patients in clinical audit practice and policy development is recommended. Because there is a persisting variation in European awareness of BSSD clinical audit requirements, work is needed to improve dissemination of information on the legislative requirements relating to clinical audit in the BSSD and in relation to inspection processes. The aim is to ensure these include clinical audit and that they encompass all clinics and specialties involved in medical applications using ionising radiation. CONCLUSION: QuADRANT provided an overarching view of clinical audit practice in Europe, with all its related aspects. Unfortunately, it showed that the awareness of the BSSD requirements for clinical audit are highly variable. Therefore, there is an urgent need to dedicate efforts towards ensuring that regulatory inspections also incorporate an assessment of clinical audit program(s), affecting all aspects of clinical work and specialties involved in patient exposure to ionising radiation.

QuADRANT: a study on uptake and implementation of clinical audit of medical radiological procedures in Europe-expert recommendations for improvement, endorsed by the ESR.

BACKGROUND: QuADRANT was a study funded by the European Commission to evaluate clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe, with an emphasis on clinical audit as mandated within the BSSD (Basic Safety Standards Directive). AIMS: QuADRANT objectives-obtain an overview of European clinical audit activity; identify good practices and resources, barriers and challenges; provide guidance and recommendations going forwards; identify the potential for European Union action on quality and safety in the three core project specialties, radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: QuADRANT identified that developments in national clinical audit infrastructure are required. National professional societies can be pivotal in improving clinical audit implementation, but resource allocation and national prioritisation of clinical audit are needed in many countries. Lack of staff time and expertise are also barriers. Enablers to enhance clinical audit participation are not widely employed. Development of hospital accreditation programmes can facilitate clinical audit uptake. An active and formalised role for patients in clinical audit practice and policy development is recommended. There is persisting variation in European awareness of BSSD clinical audit requirements. Work is needed to improve dissemination of information on the legislative requirements relating to clinical audit in the BSSD and in relation to inspection processes to ensure these include clinical audit and that they encompass all clinics and specialties involved in medical applications using ionising radiation. CONCLUSION: QuADRANT provides an important step towards enhancing clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe and improving patient safety and outcomes.

Leadership in Interventional Radiology - Fostering a Culture of Excellence.

This invited article reviews the current status of Interventional Radiology (IR), in terms of its status as a speciality, and outlines the conditions needed for IR to function optimally within healthcare settings. Guidance is offered in terms of developing an IR department, ensuring high-quality practice, dealing with administrative and political challenges, dealing with industry and creating a legacy.

The impact of renal artery stenting on therapeutic aims.

Renal artery stenosis manifests as poorly-controlled hypertension, impaired renal function or pulmonary oedema, therefore the success of treatment is dependent on indication. This study aims to determine the outcomes of patients undergoing renal artery stenting (RASt) based on therapeutic aim compared to criteria used in the largest randomised trial. Retrospective case-note review of patients undergoing RASt between 2008-2021 (n = 74). The cohort was stratified by indication for intervention (renal dysfunction, hypertension, pulmonary oedema) and criteria employed in the CORAL trial, with outcomes and adverse consequences reported. Intervention for hypertension achieved significant reduction in systolic blood pressure and antihypertensive agents at 1 year (median 43 mmHg, 1 drug), without detrimental impact on renal function. Intervention for renal dysfunction reduced serum creatinine by a median 124 µmol/L, sustained after 6 months. Intervention for pulmonary oedema was universally successful with significant reduction in SBP and serum creatinine sustained at 1 year. Patients who would have been excluded from the CORAL trial achieved greater reduction in serum creatinine than patients meeting the inclusion criteria, with equivalent blood pressure reduction. There were 2 procedure-related mortalities and 5 procedural complications requiring further intervention. 5 patients had reduction in renal function following intervention and 7 failed to achieve the intended therapeutic benefit. Renal artery stenting is effective in treating the indication for which it has been performed. Previous trials may have underestimated the clinical benefits by analysis of a heterogenous population undergoing a procedure rather than considering the indication, and excluding patients who would maximally benefit.

Justification of CT practices across Europe: results of a survey of national competent authorities and radiology societies.

OBJECTIVES: Published literature on justification of computed tomography (CT) examinations in Europe is sparse but demonstrates consistent sub-optimal application. As part of the EU initiated CT justification project, this work set out to capture CT justification practices across Europe. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire consisting of mostly closed multiple-choice questions was distributed to national competent authorities and to presidents of European radiology societies in EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK (n = 31). RESULTS: Fifty-one results were received from 30 European countries. Just 47% (n = 24) stated that advance justification of individual CT examinations is performed by a medical practitioner. Radiologists alone mostly (n = 27, 53%) perform daily justification of CT referrals although this is a shared responsibility in many countries. Imaging referral guidelines are widely available although just 13% (n = 6) consider them in daily use. Four countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Sweden, UK) reported having them embedded within clinical decision support systems. Justification of new practices with CT is mostly regulated (77%) although three countries (Belgium, Iceland and Portugal) reported not having any national system in place for generic justification. Health screening with CT was reported by seven countries as part of approved screening programmes and by eight countries outside. When performed, CT justification audits were reported to improve CT justification rates. CONCLUSIONS: CT justification practices vary across Europe with less than 50% using advance justification and a minority having clinical decision support systems in place. CT for health screening purposes is not currently widely used in Europe.