Neurointervention.  2021 Nov;16(3):240-251. 10.5469/neuroint.2021.00437.

Monitoring Radiation Doses during Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neurointerventional Procedures: Multicenter Study for Establishment of Reference Levels

• Ihn YK
• Kim Bs
• Jeong HW
• Suh SH
• Won YD
• Lee YJ
• Kim DJ
• Jeon P
• Ryu CW
• Suh Si
• Choi DS
• Choi SS
• Kim SH
• Byun JS
• Rho J
• Song Y
• Jeong WS
• Hong N
• Baik SH
• Park JJ
• Lim SM
• Kim JJ
• Yoon W

• KMID: 2522038
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5469/neuroint.2021.00437

Abstract

Purpose
To assess patient radiation doses during diagnostic and therapeutic neurointerventional procedures from multiple centers and propose dose reference level (RL).
Materials and Methods
Consecutive neurointerventional procedures, performed in 22 hospitals from December 2020 to June 2021, were retrospectively studied. We collected data from a sample of 429 diagnostic and 731 therapeutic procedures. Parameters including dose-area product (DAP), cumulative air kerma (CAK), fluoroscopic time (FT), and total number of image frames (NI) were obtained. RL were calculated as the 3rd quartiles of the distribution.
Results
Analysis of 1160 procedures from 22 hospitals confirmed the large variability in patient dose for similar procedures. RLs in terms of DAP, CAK, FT, and NI were 101.6 Gy·cm², 711.3 mGy, 13.3 minutes, and 637 frames for cerebral angiography, 199.9 Gy·cm², 3,458.7 mGy, 57.3 minutes, and 1,000 frames for aneurysm coiling, 225.1 Gy·cm², 1,590 mGy, 44.7 minutes, and 800 frames for stroke thrombolysis, 412.3 Gy·cm², 4,447.8 mGy, 99.3 minutes, and 1,621.3 frames for arteriovenous malformation (AVM) embolization, respectively. For all procedures, the results were comparable to most of those already published. Statistical analysis showed male and presence of procedural complications were significant factors in aneurysmal coiling. Male, number of passages, and procedural combined technique were significant factors in stroke thrombolysis. In AVM embolization, a significantly higher radiation dose was found in the definitive endovascular cure group.
Conclusion
Various RLs introduced in this study promote the optimization of patient doses in diagnostic and therapeutic interventional neuroradiology procedures. Proposed 3rd quartile DAP (Gy·cm²) values were 101.6 for diagnostic cerebral angiography, 199.9 for aneurysm coiling, 225.1 for stroke thrombolysis, and 412.3 for AVM embolization. Continual evolution of practices and technologies requires regular updates of RLs.

Keyword

Cerebral angiography; Diagnostic reference levels; Radiation monitoring; Intracranial aneurysm; Thrombectomy; Intracranial arteriovenous malformation

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Box plot of DAP for the neurovascular procedures analysed. The lower boundary of the box is the 25th percentile value, the upper boundary of the box is the 75th percentile value, the horizontal line within the box is the median value. DAP, dose-area product; AVM, arteriovenous malformation.

Reference

1. Alexander MD, Oliff MC, Olorunsola OG, Brus-Ramer M, Nickoloff EL, Meyers PM. Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic interventional neuroradiology procedures. J Neurointerv Surg. 2010; 2:6–10.

2. Valentin J. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Ann ICRP. 2000; 30:7–67.

3. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37:1–332.

4. Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, Authors on behalf of ICRP, et al. ICRP publication 135: diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann ICRP. 2017; 46:1–144.

5. Aroua A, Rickli H, Stauffer JC, Schnyder P, Trueb PR, Valley JF, et al. How to set up and apply reference levels in fluoroscopy at a national level. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17:1621–1633.

6. Chung JW. Evaluation of patient dose in interventional radiology. Seoul: Korea Food & Drug Administration;2007.

7. Chun CW, Kim BS, Lee CH, Ihn YK, Shin YS. Patient radiation dose in diagnostic and interventional procedures for intracranial aneurysms: experience at a single center. Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15:844–849.

8. Ihn YK, Kim BS, Byun JS, Suh SH, Won YD, Lee DH, et al. Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for intracranial aneurysms: a multicenter study. Neurointervention. 2016; 11:78–85.

9. Vano E, Järvinen H, Kosunen A, Bly R, Malone J, Dowling A, et al. Patient dose in interventional radiology: a European survey. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008; 129:39–45.

10. Etard C, Bigand E, Salvat C, Vidal V, Beregi JP, Hornbeck A, et al. Patient dose in interventional radiology: a multicentre study of the most frequent procedures in France. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27:4281–4290.

11. Kien N, Rehel JL, Etard C, Aubert B. [Patient dose during interventional neuroradiology procedures: results from a multi-center study]. J Radiol. 2011; 92:1101–1112. French.

12. Miller DL, Kwon D, Bonavia GH. Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U.S. practice. Radiology. 2009; 253:753–764.

13. Guenego A, Mosimann PJ, Pereira VM, Nicholson P, Zuber K, Lotterie JA, RADON Investigators, et al. Proposed achievable levels of dose and impact of dose-reduction systems for thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: an international, multicentric, retrospective study in 1096 patients. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29:3506–3515.

14. Farah J, Rouchaud A, Henry T, Regen C, Mihalea C, Moret J, et al. Dose reference levels and clinical determinants in stroke neuroradiology interventions. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29:645–653.

15. Acton H, James K, Kavanagh RG, O’Tuathaigh C, Moloney D, Wyse G, et al. Monitoring neurointerventional radiation doses using dose-tracking software: implications for the establishment of local diagnostic reference levels. Eur Radiol. 2018; 28:3669–3675.

16. Weyland CS, Hemmerich F, Möhlenbruch MA, Bendszus M, Pfaff JAR. Radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time in mechanical thrombectomy of anterior circulation ischemic stroke depending on the interventionalist’s experience-a retrospective single center experience. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30:1564–1570.

17. Forbrig R, Ozpeynirci Y, Grasser M, Dorn F, Liebig T, Trumm CG. Radiation dose and fluoroscopy time of modern endovascular treatment techniques in patients with saccular unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30:4504–4513.

18. Peter Y, Speelman A, Daries V. Measurement of the average radiation dose to the local skin and thyroid gland during intracranial aneurysm coil embolization. Radiography (Lond). 2021; 27:255–259.

19. Kahn EN, Gemmete JJ, Chaudhary N, Thompson BG, Chen K, Christodoulou EG, et al. Radiation dose reduction during neurointerventional procedures by modification of default settings on biplane angiography equipment. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016; 8:819–823.

20. Morris PP, Geer CP, Singh J, Brinjikji W, Carter RE. Radiation dose reduction during neuroendovascular procedures. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018; 10:481–486.

21. Kawauchi S, Chida K, Moritake T, Hamada Y, Matsumaru Y, Tsuruta W, et al. Treatment of internal carotid aneurysms using pipeline embolization devices: measuring the radiation dose of the patient and determining the factors affecting it. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020; 188:389–396.