Alternative Methodology for Occupational Dose Estimation in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures

Authors

  • Mariana Yuamoto HCPA
  • Rochelle Lykawka HCPA
  • Iana Quintanilha de Borba HCPA
  • Maurício Anés HCPA
  • Carlos Eduardo Sulzbach HCPA
  • Luíza Leindecker HCPA
  • Maurício Machado HCPA
  • Alexandre Bacelar HCPA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15392/2319-0612.2022.2004

Keywords:

Cardiac Electrophysiology, Occupational Radiation Protection, Radiation Dosage.

Abstract

Fluoroscopy-guided cardiac electrophysiology procedures are among the most critical x-ray exposures. However, occupational doses are still little-known. In this study, an alternative methodology was developed to estimate the occupational dose and evaluated its optimization in cardiac electro-physiology procedures. The procedures were reproduced by simulation and the dose rates of the staff were measured at chest and eyes height through electronic dosimeters. The dose rate for different modes of operation and FOV were evaluated. The occupational dose was estimated through the product of the dose rate in the staff's position in the room, the median time of exposure and the mean of these procedures performed by the HCPA in 2019. As a result, it was observed that the decreasing order of the estimated occupational dose was Physician A - Physician R - Nursing Staff and Radiographer - Physician B and Supplier, with the following values in mSv/year of 6.16 - 3.98 - 2.54 - 2.17, respectively. A 37.04% reduction in the occupational dose was observed with the change in FOV, up to 59.26% with different modes of acquisition and 31.82% distancing 50 cm from the most exposed position. The dose of staff is significant. However, due to the optimization of protocols already implemented in HCPA, the estimated doses are in accordance with the recommended dose limits. As optimization actions verified in this study, it is suggested the proper selection of FOV, the adoption of acquisition modes with dose reduction and the distance from the x-ray source.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

L. Canevaro, “Aspectos físicos e técnicos da Radiologia Intervencionista,” Rev. Bras. Física Médica, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 101–115, 2009.

H. J.W. et al., “2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging: Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness,” Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv., vol. 92, no. 2, pp. E35–E97, 2018, doi: 10.1002/ccd.27659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27659

K. A. Wunderle, M. K. Chung, S. Rayadurgam, M. A. Miller, N. A. Obuchowski, and B. D. Lindsay, “Occupational and patient radiation doses in a modern cardiac electrophysiology laboratory.,” J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. an Int. J. Arrhythm. pacing, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 183–190, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0462-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-018-0462-8

ANVISA, “Resolução Da Diretoria Colegiada - Rdc No 330, De 20 De Dezembro De 2019,” Diário Of. da União, vol. 234, no. 1, p. 85, 2019.

E. Vano, N. J. Kleiman, A. Duran, M. M. Rehani, D. Echeverri, and M. Cabrera, “Radiation Cataract Risk in Interventional Cardiology Personnel,” Radiat. Res., vol. 174, no. 4, pp. 490–495, Oct. 2010, doi: 10.1667/RR2207.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1667/RR2207.1

ICRP, “ICRP Publication 117: Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside the Imaging Department,” 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.03.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2012.03.001

IAEA, “Assessment of Occupational Exposure Due to External Sources of Radiation. Safety Standard RS-G-1.2,” 1999.

CNEN. Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação, “Norma CNEN NN 3.01: DIRETRIZES BÁSICAS DE PROTEÇÃO RADIOLÓGICA,” vol. 05, pp. 1–22, 2014, [Online]. Available: http://appasp.cnen.gov.br/seguranca/normas/pdf/Nrm301.pdf.

AAPM, Cardiac Catheterization Equipment Performance, no. 70. 2001.

SEFM-SEPR-SERAM, Protocolo Español de Control de Calidad en Radiodiagnóstico, vol. 5, no. 1. 2011.

“RaySafe i3 Product Leaflet,” [Online]. Available: http://mediabank.raysafe.com/downloadAsset.jsp?catalog=RaySafe+Media+Bank&id=299&.

W. M. B. e S. V. Juliana Pimentel, “AVALIAÇÃO DA ATENUAÇÃO DE AVENTAIS PLUMBÍFEROS COM DIFERENTES EQUIVALÊNCIAS DE CHUMBO PARA USO EM SERVIÇOS DE RADIOLOGIA,” Soc. DEPROTEÇÃO RADIOLÓGICA, pp. 0–5, 2014.

J. T. Bushberg, J. A. Seibert, E. M. Leidholdt, J. M. Boone, and E. J. Goldschmidt, The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, vol. 30, no. 7. 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1585033

IAEA, “10 Recomendações para proteção de pacientes em fluoroscopia 64,” pp. 1–2.

Downloads

Published

2022-10-29

How to Cite

Yuamoto, M., Lykawka, R., Borba, I. Q. de, Anés, M., Sulzbach, C. E., Leindecker, L., Machado, M., & Bacelar, A. (2022). Alternative Methodology for Occupational Dose Estimation in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures. Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences, 10(3B (Suppl.). https://doi.org/10.15392/2319-0612.2022.2004

Issue

Section

INAC 2021_XV ENAN

Most read articles by the same author(s)