Download PDF
Rofo 2015; 187(10): 899-905
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1399662
Quality/Quality Assurance
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Role of Experience, Leadership and Individual Protection in the Cath Lab – A Multicenter Questionnaire and Workshop on Radiation Safety

Die Bedeutung interventioneller Erfahrung, Führung und individueller Schutzmaßnahmen im Katheterlabor – Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen Befragung mit Strahlenschutzkurs
E. Kuon
1   Division of Cardiology, Klinik Fraenkische Schweiz, Ebermannstadt, Germany
,
K. Weitmann
2   Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany
,
W. Hoffmann
2   Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany
,
M. Dörr
3   Division of Internal Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany
,
A. Hummel
3   Division of Internal Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany
,
M. C. Busch
3   Division of Internal Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany
,
S. B. Felix
3   Division of Internal Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany
,
K. Empen
3   Division of Internal Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 January 2015

12 April 2015

Publication Date:
10 June 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: Radiation exposure in invasive cardiology remains considerable. We evaluated the acceptance of radiation protective devices and the role of operator experience, team leadership, and technical equipment in radiation safety efforts in the clinical routine.

Materials and Methods: Cardiologists (115 from 27 centers) answered a questionnaire and documented radiation parameters for 10 coronary angiographies (CA), before and 3.1 months after a 90-min. mini-course in radiation-reducing techniques.

Results: Mini-course participants achieved significant median decreases in patient dose area products (DAP: from 26.6 to 13.0 Gy × cm2), number of radiographic frames (– 29 %) and runs (– 18 %), radiographic DAP/frame (– 32 %), fluoroscopic DAP/s (– 39 %), and fluoroscopy time (– 16 %). Multilevel analysis revealed lower DAPs with decreasing body mass index (– 1.4 Gy × cm2 per kg/m2), age (– 1.2 Gy × cm2/decade), female sex (– 5.9 Gy × cm2), participation of the team leader (– 9.4 Gy × cm2), the mini-course itself (– 16.1 Gy × cm2), experience (– 0.7 Gy × cm2/1000 CAs throughout the interventionalist’s professional life), and use of older catheterization systems (– 6.6 Gy × cm2). Lead protection included apron (100 %), glass sheet (95 %), lengthwise (94 %) and crosswise (69 %) undercouch sheet, collar (89 %), glasses (28 %), cover around the patients’ thighs (19 %), foot switch shield (7 %), gloves (3 %), and cap (1 %).

Conclusion: Radiation-protection devices are employed less than optimally in the clinical routine. Cardiologists with a great variety of interventional experience profited from our radiation safety workshop – to an even greater extent if the interventional team leader also participated.

Key Points:

• Radiation protection devices are employed less than optimally in invasive cardiology.

• The presented radiation-safety mini-course was highly efficient.

• Cardiologists at all levels of experience profited from the mini-course – considerably more so if the team leader also took part.

• Interventional experience was less relevant for radiation reduction.

• Consequently both fellows and trainers should be encouraged to practice autonomy in radiation safety.

Citation Format:

• Kuon E, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W et al. Role of Experience, Leadership and Individual Protection in the Cath Lab – A Multicenter Questionnaire and Workshop on Radiation Safety. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 899 – 905

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Die Strahlenexposition in der invasiven Kardiologie ist erheblich. Wir untersuchten die Akzeptanz von Strahlenschutzvorrichtungen und den Einfluss von Erfahrung, Teamleitung und technischer Ausstattung auf die Strahlenschutzbemühungen im klinischen Alltag.

Material und Methoden: 115 Kardiologen (27 Zentren) beantworteten einen Fragebogen und erhoben multiple Dosisparameter im Verlauf von 10 Koronarangiografien (KA) vor und 3,1 Monate nach einem 90-min. Kurs in strahlenreduzierenden Techniken.

Ergebnisse: Die Kursteilnehmer erzielten signifikante mediane Absenkungen des Dosisflächenprodukts (DFP: von 26,6 auf 13,0 Gy × cm2), der Bilder- (– 29 %) und Serienanzahl (– 18 %), des radiografischen DFP/Bild (– 32 %), des fluoroskopischen DFP/Sek. (– 39 %) und der Durchleuchtungszeit (– 16 %). Die Mehrebenen-Analyse ergab niedrigere DFPs mit sinkendem Körpergewichtsindex (– 1,4 Gy × cm2 per kg/m2) und Alter (– 1,2 Gy × cm2/10 J.), für weibliches Geschlecht (– 5,9 Gy × cm2), Kursteilnahme der Kardiologen (– 16,1 Gy × cm2) und zusätzlich (– 9,4 Gy × cm2) des Teamleiters, für interventionelle Erfahrung (– 0,7 Gy × cm2/1000 KA) sowie ältere konventionelle Katheteranlagen (– 6,6 Gy × cm2). Strahlenschutzmittel wurden in folgender Häufigkeit verwendet: Mantel (100 %), Scheibe (95 %), Untertischlamellen längs/quer (94 %/69 %), Schilddrüsenschutz (89 %), Brille (28 %), Patienten-Oberschenkelabdeckung (19 %), Fußschalterabdeckung (7 %), Handschuhe (3 %) und Helm (1 %).

Schlussfolgerung: Strahlenschutzmaßnahmen werden in der täglichen Routine unzureichend umgesetzt. Kardiologen unterschiedlichsten Erfahrungsstandes profitierten von unserem Strahlenschutzkurs, vor allem im Falle der Kursteilnahme des Teamleiters.

Kernaussagen:

• Strahlenschutzmaßnahmen sind in der invasiven Kardiologie unteroptimal umgesetzt.

• Der vorgestellte Strahlenschutz-Minikurs erwies sich als hocheffizient.

• Kardiologen unterschiedlichsten Erfahrungsstandes profitierten von ihm: erheblich mehr im Falle einer Teilnahme des Teamleiters.

• Interventionelle Erfahrung spielte eine untergeordnete Rolle für die erzielte Dosisreduktion.

• Daher sollten Auszubildende wie auch erfahrene Kollegen durch Kursangebote zu eigenverantwortlichem Strahlenschutz ermutigt werden.

Key words

radiation safety - heart - coronary angiography - efficacy studies - education - QA/QC
 

  • References

  • 1 Einstein AJ, Weiner AD, Bernheim A et al. Multiple testing, cumulative radiation dose and clinical indications in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. JAMA 2010; 304: 2137-2144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Picano E, Vañó E, Rehani MM et al. The appropriate and justified use of medical radiation in cardiovascular imaging: a position document of the ESC Associations of Cardiovascular Imaging, Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Electrophysiology. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 665-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Einstein AJ, Berman DS, Min JK et al. Patient-centered imaging: shared decision making for cardiac imaging procedures with exposure to ionizing radiation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 1480-1489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. Report No. 160. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Einstein AJ. Effects of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging: how good are the data?. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 553-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Smilowitz NR, Balter S, Weisz G. Occupational hazards of interventional cardiology. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2013; 14: 223-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pantos I, Patatoukas G, Katritsis DM et al. Patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology procedures. Curr Cardiol Rev 2009; 5: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kuon E, Felix SB, Weitmann K et al. ECG-gated coronary angiography enables submillisievert imaging in invasive cardiology. Herz 2014; 39 [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cousins C, Miller DL, Bernardi G et al. Radiological protection in cardiology. ICRP publication 120. Ann ICRP 2013; 42: 1-125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chambers CE. Mandatory radiation safety training for fluoroscopy imaging: a quality improvement priority or unnecessary oversight?. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 391-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M et al. The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res 2007; 167: 396-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA et al. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res 2012; 178: AV 146-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Russo GL, Tedesco I, Russo M et al. Cellular adaptive response to chronic radiation exposure in interventional cardiologists. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 408-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Knuuti J, Järvinen J. CardioPulse. Radiation exposure and the risk of cancer for interventional cardiologists and electrophysiologists. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 603-604
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Roguin A. CardioPulse. Radiation in cardiology: can't live without it!: using appropriate shielding, keeping a distance as safely as possible and reducing radiation time are essential principles for radiation reduction. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 599-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Buchanan GL, Chieffo A, Mehilli J et al. Women In Innovation Group. The occupational effects of interventional cardiology: results from the WIN for Safety survey. EuroIntervention 2012; 8: 658-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Marinskis G, Bongiorni MG, Dagres N. Scientific Initiative Committee, European Heart Rhythm Association et al. X-ray exposure hazards for physicians performing ablation procedures and device implantation: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace 2013; 15: 444-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Heidbuchel H, Wittkampf FH, Vano E et al. Practical ways to reduce radiation dose for patients and staff during device implantations and electrophysiological procedures. Europace 2014; 16: 946-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kuon E, Empen K, Weitmann K et al. Long-term efficacy of a mini-course in radiation-reducing techniques in invasive cardiology. Fortschritte Röntgenstrahlen 2013; 185: 720-725
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kuon E, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W et al. Multicenter long-term validation of a mini-course in radiation-reducing techniques in the cathlab. Am J Cardiol 2015; 115: 367-373 [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.043.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kuon E, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W et al. Efficacy of a mini-course in radiation-reducing techniques in invasive cardiology – a multicenter field study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 382-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fetterly KA, Mathew V, Lennon R et al. Radiation dose reduction in the invasive cardiovascular laboratory. Implementing a culture and philosophy of radiation safety. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5: 866-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kuon E. Radiation exposure in invasive cardiology. Heart 2008; 94: 667-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kuon E, Weitmann K, Hummel A et al. Latest-generation catheterization systems enable sub-millisievert invasive coronary angiography. Herz 2013; [Epub ahead of print] 38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 AQUA-Federal evaluation 2012 Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Indicators of quality. Göttingen: AQUA-Institute for applied quality support and research in health service Ltd. [updated 2013 May 30], 62 [German]. Available at: http://www.sqg.de/downloads/Bundesauswertungen/2012/bu_Gesamt_21N3-KORO-PCI_2012.pdf Accessed 22 December 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Georges JL, Belle L, Ricard C. RAY'ACT investigators et al. Patient exposure to X-rays during coronary angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention: Results of a multicenter national survey. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 83: 729-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chambers CE, Fetterly KA, Holzer R et al. Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 77: 546-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Radiation protection of patients (RPOP). Available at: http://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/AdditionalResources/Training/1_TrainingMaterial/Cardiology.htm Accessed 22 December 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 The MARTIR project (Multimedia and Audiovisual Radiation Protection Training in Interventional Radiology) Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/wcm/nuclear/cd_rom_martir_project.zip Accessed 22 December 2014
    PubMed
  • 30 Von Bötticher H. CardioPulse. Radiation exposure to personnel in cardiac catheterization laboratories. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 602
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Azpiri-López JR, Assad-Morell JL, González-González JG et al. Effect of physician training on the X-ray dose delivered during coronary angioplasty. J Invasive Cardiol 2013; 25: 109-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar