Occupational and Patient Radiation Dose and Quality Implications of Femoral Access Imaging During Coronary Angiography

References

• Hernández C, Durán A, Cortés MC. Lesiones oculares y radiación ionizante. Revista Colombiana de Cardiología. 2020;27:72–78. doi:10.1016/j.rccar.2019.09.004
   Google Scholar
• Ison GR, Allahwala U, Weaver JC. Radiation Management in Coronary Angiography: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion at the Frontier. Heart Lung Circ. 2019;28(10):1501–1509. doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2019.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boice JD, Held KD, Shore RE. Radiation epidemiology and health effects following low-level radiation exposure. J Radiol Prot. 2019;39(4):S14–S27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein LW, Tra Y, Garratt KN, et al. Occupational health hazards of interventional cardiologists in the current decade: Results of the 2014 SCAI membership survey. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(5):913–924. doi:10.1002/ccd.25927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roguin A. Radiation Hazards to Interventional Cardiologists: A Report on Increased Brain Tumors Among Physicians Working in the Cath Lab. SOLACI. Buenos Aires: Argentina; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Aristizábal JM. Riesgo cardiovascular relacionado con la radiación ionizante. Revista Colombiana de Cardiología. 2020;27:21–24. doi:10.1016/j.rccar.2019.11.001
   Google Scholar
• Borghini A, Vecoli C, Piccaluga E, Guagliumi G, Picano E, Andreassi MG. Increased mitochondrial DNA4977-bp deletion in catheterization laboratory workers with long-term low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019;26(9):976–984. doi:10.1177/2047487319831495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coppeta L, Pietroiusti A, Neri A, et al. Risk of radiation-induced lens opacities among surgeons and interventional medical staff. Radiol Phys Technol. 2019;12(1):26–29. doi:10.1007/s12194-018-0487-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castle E, Rathod K, Guttmann O, et al. Routine use of fluoroscopic guidance and up-front femoral angiography results in reduced femoral complications in patients undergoing coronary angiographic procedures: an observational study using an Interrupted Time-Series analysis. Heart Vessels. 2019;34(3):419–426. doi:10.1007/s00380-018-1266-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhatriwalla AK, Lim M, Sorajja P. Arterial and venous access. In: Sorajja P, Lim M, Kern M, editors. Kern’s Cardiac Catheterization Handbook. 2020:79–130.
   Google Scholar
• Kern MJ, Seto AH, Forsberg M. Vascular Access. In: Kern M, Sorajja P, Lim M, editors. The Interventional Cardiac Catheterization Handbook. Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A: Elsevier; 2018:51–87.
   Google Scholar
• Moscucci M. Grossman & Baim’s Cardiac Catheterization, Angiography, and Intervention. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Schueler BA, Fetterly KA, Balter S. Radiation Safety During Cardiovascular Procedures. In: Topol E, Teirstein P, editors. Textbook of Interventional Cardiology. 8 ed. Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A: Elsevier; 2020:128–138.e122.
   Google Scholar
• Tarighatnia A, Mohammadalian A, Ghojazade M, Pourafkari L, Farajollahi A. Beam projections and radiation exposure in transradial and transfemoral approaches during coronary angiography. Anatol J Cardiol. 2017;18(4):298–303. doi:10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2017.7724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl MS, Torok C, Wang J, Wyse E, Mahesh M, Gailloud P. Practical techniques for reducing radiation exposure during cerebral angiography procedures. J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7(2):141. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geber T, Gunnarsson M, Mattsson S. Eye lens dosimetry for interventional procedures – Relation between the absorbed dose to the lens and dose at measurement positions. Radiat Meas. 2011;46(11):1248–1251. doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2011.07.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh C, Dowling A, Meade A, Malone J. Subjective and objective measures of image quality in digital fluoroscopy. Radia Prot Dosimetry. 2005;117(1–3):34–37. doi:10.1093/rpd/nci708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zurcher KS, Naidu SG, Money SR, et al. Dose Reduction Using Digital Fluoroscopy Versus Digital Subtraction Angiography in EVAR: A Prospective Randomized Trial. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(6):1938–1945. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.02.050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minici R, Paone S, Talarico M, et al. Percutaneous treatment of vascular access-site complications: a ten years’ experience in two centres. CVIR Endovascular. 2020;3(1):29. doi:10.1186/s42155-020-00120-7
   Google Scholar
• Rane N, Imam A, Foley P, Timmons G, Uberoi R. Pelvic digital subtraction catheter angiography—Are routine oblique projections necessary? Eur J Radiol. 2011;77(1):182–184. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López PO, Dauer LT, Loose R, et al. ICRP Publication 139: Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures. Annals of the ICRP. 2018;47(2):1–118. doi:10.1177/0146645317750356
   Google Scholar
• Kim J-S, Lee B-K, Ryu D-R, et al. Occupational radiation exposure in femoral artery approach is higher than radial artery approach during coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):7104. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62794-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson-Stewart K, Hartel G, Fontanarosa D. Occupational radiation exposure to the head is higher for scrub nurses than cardiologists during cardiac angiography. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(11):2692–2700. doi:10.1111/jan.14085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abuzeid W, Abunassar J, Leis JA, et al. Radiation safety in the cardiac catheterization lab: A time series quality improvement initiative. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017;18(5,Supplement 1):S22–S26. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2017.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pancholy SB, Joshi P, Shah S, Rao SV, Bertrand OF, Patel TM. Effect of Vascular Access Site Choice on Radiation Exposure During Coronary Angiography: The REVERE Trial (Randomized Evaluation of Vascular Entry Site and Radiation Exposure). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(9):1189–1196. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2015.03.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rychlik J, Hornacek I, Tejc M, Petrikovits E, Klimsa Z. Retrospective analysis of coronary interventions in a single centre and comparison of specific differences between radial and femoral access. Acta Cardiol. 2019;74(4):325–330. doi:10.1080/00015385.2018.1494115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Üreyen ÇM, Coşansu K, Vural MG, et al. Is trans-radial approach related to an increased risk of radiation exposure in patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention? (The SAKARYA study). Anatolian j Cardiol. 2019;22(1):5–12. doi:10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2019.06013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georges J-L, Belle L, Meunier L, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention is associated with lower patient radiation exposure in high-radial-volume centres: insights from the RAY’ACT-1 study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;110(3):179–187. doi:10.1016/j.acvd.2016.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, A. Obesity and Medical Imaging Challenges. Radiol Technol. 2011;82(3):219–239.
   Google Scholar
• Leyton F, Nogueira MS, Gubolino LA, Pivetta MR, Ubeda C. Correlation between scatter radiation dose at height of operator’s eye and dose to patient for different angiographic projections. Appl Radiat Isot. 2016;117:100–105. doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2016.01.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taddeucci A, Piffer S, Redapi L. European Commission publication RP-162 as a strong reference for reducing patient radiation dose: Results from an angiography equipment updating. Phys Med. 2020;71:132–136. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.02.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar