J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg.  2024 Mar;26(1):46-50. 10.7461/jcen.2023.E2023.01.007.

Reducing frame rate and pulse rate for routine diagnostic cerebral angiography: ALARA principles in practice

• Wali AR
• Pathuri S
• Brandel MG
• Sindewald RW
• Hirshman BR
• Bravo JA
• Steinberg JA
• Olson SE
• Pannell JS
• Khalessi A
• Santiago-Dieppa D

• KMID: 2554045
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.7461/jcen.2023.E2023.01.007

Abstract

Objective
Diagnostic cerebral angiograms (DCAs) are widely used in neurosurgery due to their high sensitivity and specificity to diagnose and characterize pathology using ionizing radiation. Eliminating unnecessary radiation is critical to reduce risk to patients, providers, and health care staff. We investigated if reducing pulse and frame rates during routine DCAs would decrease radiation burden without compromising image quality.
Methods
We performed a retrospective review of prospectively acquired data after implementing a quality improvement protocol in which pulse rate and frame rate were reduced from 15 p/s to 7.5 p/s and 7.5 f/s to 4.0 f/s respectively. Radiation doses and exposures were calculated. Two endovascular neurosurgeons reviewed randomly selected angiograms of both doses and blindly assessed their quality.
Results
A total of 40 consecutive angiograms were retrospectively analyzed, 20 prior to the protocol change and 20 after. After the intervention, radiation dose, radiation per run, total exposure, and exposure per run were all significantly decreased even after adjustment for BMI (all p<0.05). On multivariable analysis, we identified a 46% decrease in total radiation dose and 39% decrease in exposure without compromising image quality or procedure time.
Conclusions
We demonstrated that for routine DCAs, pulse rate of 7.5 with a frame rate of 4.0 is sufficient to obtain diagnostic information without compromising image quality or elongating procedure time. In the interest of patient, provider, and health care staff safety, we strongly encourage all interventionalists to be cognizant of radiation usage to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure and consequential health risks.

Keyword

Cerebral angiography; Radiation; Fluoroscopy; Endovascular procedures; ALARA

Reference

1. Kaplan DJ, Patel JN, Liporace FA, Yoon RS. Intraoperative radiation safety in orthopaedics: A review of the ALARA (As low as reasonably achievable) principle. Patient Saf Surg. 2016; Dec. 10:27.

2. Kemerink G, Frantzen M, Oei K, Sluzewski M, van Rooij W, Wilmink J, et al. Patient and occupational dose in neurointerventional procedures. Neuroradiology. 2002; Jun. 44(6):522–8.

3. Kim DJ, Park MK, Jung DE, Kang JH, Kim BM. Radiation dose reduction without compromise to image quality by alterations of filtration and focal spot size in cerebral angiography. Korean J Radiol. 2017; Jul-Aug. 18(4):722–8.

4. Maeng JY, Song Y, Sung YS, Kim TI, Lee DH, Kim TH. Feasibility of ultra-low radiation dose digital subtraction angiography: Preliminary study in a simplified cerebral angiography phantom. Interv Neuroradiol. 2019; Oct. 25(5):589–95.

5. Mooney RB, McKinstry CS, Kamel HA. Absorbed dose and deterministic effects to patients from interventional neuroradiology. Br J Radiol. 2000; Jul. 73(871):745–51.

6. Morris PP, Geer CP, Singh J, Brinjikji W, Carter RE. Radiation dose reduction during neuroendovascular procedures. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018; May. 10(5):481–6.

7. 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; Feb. 7(2):141–5.

8. Peterson EC, Kanal KM, Dickinson RL, Stewart BK, Kim LJ. Radiation-induced complications in endovascular neurosurgery: Incidence of skin effects and the feasibility of estimating risk of future tumor formation. Neurosurgery. 2013; Apr. 72(4):566–72.

9. Refahiyat L, Clarey A, Bundy J, Mandieka E, Benavides D, Crane T, et al. Impact of patient body mass index on nurse radiation dose during coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; Mar. 71(11_Supplement):A1032–2.

10. Rosenblum JD, Pasternak O, Mitchell MT. Complications of neuroimaging. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014; 121:1743–50.

11. Schneider T, Wyse E, Pearl MS. Analysis of radiation doses incurred during diagnostic cerebral angiography after the implementation of dose reduction strategies. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017; Apr. 9(4):384–8.

12. Thierry-Chef I, Simon SL, Land CE, Miller DL. Radiation dose to the brain and subsequent risk of developing brain tumors in pediatric patients undergoing interventional neuroradiology procedures. Radiat Res. 2008; Nov. 170(5):553–65.

13. Vargas FG, da Silva BS, de Oliveira Cardoso C, Leguisamo N, de Moraes CAR, de Moraes CV, et al. Impact of body weight on radiation exposure during invasive cardiac procedures. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva Engl Ed. 2012; Jan. 20(1):63–8.

14. Vehmas T. Hawthorne effect: Shortening of fluoroscopy times during radiation measurement studies. Br J Radiol. 1997; Oct. 70(838):1053–5.

15. Yanch JC, Behrman RH, Hendricks MJ, McCall JH. Increased radiation dose to overweight and obese patients from radiographic examinations. Radiology. 2009; Jul. 252(1):128–39.

16. Yi HJ, Sung JH, Lee DH, Kim SW, Lee SW. Analysis of radiation doses and dose reduction strategies during cerebral digital subtraction angiography. World Neurosurg. 2017; Apr. 100:216–23.

17. Yoon NK, McNally S, Taussky P, Park MS. Imaging of cerebral aneurysms: A clinical perspective. Neurovascular Imaging. 2016; Dec. 2(1):6.