Volume 23, Issue 1 (Iranian South Medical Journal 2020)
Iran South Med J 2020, 23(1): 27-35 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Edraki M R, Karimi E, Amoozgar H, Navaeifar M R. Effective Dose of Radiation in Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Angiography among Pediatrics and Adolescents in Hospitals of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences versus Other Radiology Devices. Iran South Med J 2020; 23 (1) :27-35
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-1240-en.html
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-1240-en.html
1- Department of Pediatric Cardiology Ward, Nemazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2- Department of Pediatric Ward, Nemazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3- Department of Pediatric Cardiology Ward, Nemazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran ,amozham@yahoo.com
2- Department of Pediatric Ward, Nemazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3- Department of Pediatric Cardiology Ward, Nemazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran ,
Abstract: (4278 Views)
Background: Cardiac catheterization and angiography are diagnostic and therapeutic imaging modalities that produce the highest X-ray radiation, which might impose lifelong risks to patients. This study aimed to evaluate radiation burden among children and adolescents with congenital heart diseases, who underwent cardiac catheterization and angiography. Then the results were compared with other imaging modalities.
Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, children and adolescents with congenital heart diseases were consecutively evaluated from April 2017 till November 2017. This research was designed in Namazi and Faghihi teaching hospitals affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. In addition to the basic data and total radiation time, effective dose and dose area product were assessed for each patient.
Results: We enrolled 148 consecutive patients under 18 years old, who underwent 36 diagnostic and 112 interventional cardiac catheterizations. Effective dose was 50.23 mGy in the diagnostic catheterizations, and 48.39 mGy in the interventional angiographies. Also the dose area product was 427/28 mGy.cm2 in the diagnostic catheterizations, and 476.62 mGy.cm2 in the interventional angiography.
The most time-consuming cine fluoroscopy pertained to ventricular septal defect closure and (11.67
seconds) and the most effective dose and dose area product pertained to the same procedure, as well (68,514 mGy and 623,843 mGy.cm2 respectively).
Conclusion: Effective dose and dose area product in cardiac catheterization were desirable, and some
previous studies revealed that carcinogenic effect of X-ray radiation is more prominent when effective dose is more than 70-100 mGy. Thus the effective dose might not cause hazardous outcomes if other x ray
modalities are not frequently requested for them in future.
Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, children and adolescents with congenital heart diseases were consecutively evaluated from April 2017 till November 2017. This research was designed in Namazi and Faghihi teaching hospitals affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. In addition to the basic data and total radiation time, effective dose and dose area product were assessed for each patient.
Results: We enrolled 148 consecutive patients under 18 years old, who underwent 36 diagnostic and 112 interventional cardiac catheterizations. Effective dose was 50.23 mGy in the diagnostic catheterizations, and 48.39 mGy in the interventional angiographies. Also the dose area product was 427/28 mGy.cm2 in the diagnostic catheterizations, and 476.62 mGy.cm2 in the interventional angiography.
The most time-consuming cine fluoroscopy pertained to ventricular septal defect closure and (11.67
seconds) and the most effective dose and dose area product pertained to the same procedure, as well (68,514 mGy and 623,843 mGy.cm2 respectively).
Conclusion: Effective dose and dose area product in cardiac catheterization were desirable, and some
previous studies revealed that carcinogenic effect of X-ray radiation is more prominent when effective dose is more than 70-100 mGy. Thus the effective dose might not cause hazardous outcomes if other x ray
modalities are not frequently requested for them in future.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Cardiovascular System
Received: 2019/09/25 | Accepted: 2019/12/10 | Published: 2020/03/28
Received: 2019/09/25 | Accepted: 2019/12/10 | Published: 2020/03/28
References
1. Bacher K, Bogaert E, Lapere R, et al. PatientSpecific Dose and Radiation Risk Estimation in Pediatric Cardiac Catheterization. Circulation 2005; 111(1): 83-9. [DOI:10.1161/01.CIR.0000151098.52656.3A]
2. Hoffmann A, Engelfriet P, Mulder B. Radiation Exposure During Follow-up of Adults with Congenital Heart Disease. Int J Cardiol 2007; 118(2): 151-3. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.012]
3. Andreassi MG, Ait-Ali L, Botto N, et al. Cardiac Catheterization and Long-Term Chromosomal Damage in Children with Congenital Heart Disease. Eur Heart J 2006; 27(22): 2703-8. [DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl014]
4. Ait-Ali L, Andreassi MG, Foffa I, et al. Cumulative Patient Effective Dose and Acute Radiation-Induced Chromosomal DNA Damage in Children with Congenital Heart Disease. Heart 2010; 96(4): 269-74. [DOI:10.1136/hrt.2008.160309]
5. Chida K, Ohno T, Kakizaki S, et al. Radiation Dose to the Pediatric Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention Patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195(5): 1175-9. [DOI:10.2214/AJR.10.4466]
6. Zewdu M, Kadir E, Berhane M. Assessment of Pediatrics Radiation Dose from Routine X-ray Examination at Jimma University Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci 2017; 27(5): 481-90. [DOI:10.4314/ejhs.v27i5.6]
7. Ward R, Carroll WD, Cunningham P, et al. Radiation Dose from Common Radiological Investigations and Cumulative Exposure in Children with Cystic Fibrosis: An Observational Study from a Single UK Centre. BMJ open 2017; 7(8): e017548. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017548]
8. Wildgruber M, Müller-Wille R, Goessmann H, et al. Direct Effective Dose Calculations in Pediatric Fluoroscopy-Guided Abdominal Interventions with Rando-alderson Phantoms- Optimization of Preset Parameter Settings. PloS One 2016; 11(8): e0161806. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0161806]
9. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation Exposures From CT Scans In Childhood And Subsequent Risk Of Leukaemia And Brain Tumours: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Lancet 2012; 380(9840): 499-505. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0]
10. Akhlaghi P. Estimating the Radiation-Induced Cancer Risks in Pediatric Computed Tomography. Iran J Med Phys 2016; 13(4) :218-27. [DOI]
11. Travassos LV, Boechat MCB, Santos EN, et al. Evaluation of Radiation dose in Voiding Cystourethrography in Children. Radiol Bras 2009; 42(1): 21-5. [DOI:10.1590/S0100-39842009000100006]
12. Smith-Bindman R, Moghadassi M, Wilson N, et al. Radiation doses in Consecutive CT Examinations from Five University of California Medical Centers. Radiology 2015; 277(1): 134-41. [DOI:10.1148/radiol.2015142728]
13. Kutanzi K, Lumen A, Koturbash I, et al. Pediatric Exposures to Ionizing Radiation: Carcinogenic Considerations. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13(11): 1057. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph13111057]
14. Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, et al. The Use of Computed Tomography in Pediatrics and the Associated Radiation Exposure and Estimated Cancer Risk. JAMA Pediatr 2013; 167(8): 700-7. [DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.311]
15. Jadhav SP, Golriz F, Atweh LA, et al. CT Angiography of Neonates and Infants: Comparison of Radiation dose and Image Quality of Target Mode Prospectively ECGGated 320-MDCT and Ungated Helical 64-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204(2): W184-91. [DOI:10.2214/AJR.14.12846]
16. Harbron RW, Pearce MS, Salotti JA, et al. Radiation doses from Fluoroscopically Guided Cardiac Catheterization Procedures in Children and Young Adults in the United Kingdom: A Multicentre Study. Br J Radiol 2015; 88(1048): 20140852. [DOI:10.1259/bjr.20140852]
17. Aliasgharzadeh A, Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Aminolroayaei F. Radiation Cancer Risk from Doses to Newborn Infants Hospitalized in Neonatal Intensive Care Units in Children Hospitals of Isfahan Province. Int J Radiat Res 2018; 16(1): 117-22. [Link]
18. Nickoloff EL, Lu ZF, Dutta AK, et al. Radiation dose Descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and Other Strange Creatures. Radiographics 2008; 28(5): 1439-50. [DOI:10.1148/rg.285075748]
19. Herath L, Rosairo S. Effective Dose and Dose Area Product Assessment for Postero-Anterior Erect Chest X-ray Examinations of Adult Patients in a Selected Teaching Hospital in SriLanka. 9th International Research Conference. 2016 Sep. KDU, Sri Lanka.
20. Shokrolahi F, Aliasgari E, Mirzaie A. Cytotoxic Effects of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles on Colon Cancer Cell Line (HT29) and Analysis of Caspase-3 and 9 Gene Expression Using Real Time PCR and Flow Cytometry. Iran South Med J 2019; 21(6): 426-438. (Persian) [Link]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
