Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2021; 31(02): 265-269
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1733814
Original Article

Analysis of Factors Affecting Air Kerma Area Product Obtained during Uterine Artery Embolization Procedures Using Logistic Regression

Khaled Soliman 
1   Department of Medical Physics, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Ahmed Almutairi
2   Department of Radiodiagnostic and Medical Imaging, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Murdhi AlHarbi
2   Department of Radiodiagnostic and Medical Imaging, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Khaleel Almutairi
2   Department of Radiodiagnostic and Medical Imaging, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Turky Almutairi
2   Department of Radiodiagnostic and Medical Imaging, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Mousa Bakkari
1   Department of Medical Physics, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a common interventional radiology procedure used in medicine; the procedure is safe but there is always a concern regarding radiation dose received by the patient. The aim of this study was to use multivariable logistic regression analysis (MLRA) to study a certain number of independent prognostic variables believed to provide an estimate of the likelihood of obtaining a high kerma area product (P KA) at the end of the procedure.

Method Radiation dose indices registered by the angiographic system structured dose report, the total fluoroscopy time (FT), the patient’ body mass index (BMI), the number of images taken during the procedures (IMGS), and the performing physician experience (EXPER) were used to drive a logistic regression model (LRM).

Results The LRM found was: Logit (P KA) = −6.1525 + 0.0416 (FT) + 0.1028 (IMGS) + 0.1675 (BMI) – 0.1012 (EXPER). The prediction accuracy of the LRM was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve; by calculating the area under the curve (AUC), we found AUC = 0.7896, with optimal ROC point of 0.3261, 0.8036.

Conclusion The suggested LRM seems to indicate that patients with higher BMI, have taken longer FT, acquired higher IMGS and the procedure done by a less experienced performing physician is more susceptible to receive a higher P KA at the end. The proposed LRM is useful in predicting the occurrence of higher radiation exposure interventions and can be used in patients’ radiation dose optimization strategies during UAE procedures.

Keywords

air kerma - logistic regression - predictive variables - uterine artery embolization - radiation dose


Publication History

Article published online:
28 July 2021

© 2021. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology 2010; 254 (02) 326-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 McCarthy CJ, Kilcoyne A, Li X. et al. Radiation dose and risk estimates of CT-guided percutaneous liver ablations and factors associated with dose reduction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018; 41 (12) 1935-1942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB. et al. SIR Safety and Health Committee; CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee. Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20 (07) S263-S273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Balter S, Miller DL. Patient skin reactions from interventional fluoroscopy procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (04) W335-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dauer LT, Thornton R, Erdi Y. et al. Estimating radiation doses to the skin from interventional radiology procedures for a patient population with cancer. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20 (06) 782-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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 (03) 753-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vano E, Sanchez R, Fernandez JM. et al. Patient dose reference levels for interventional radiology: a national approach. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2009; 32 (01) 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ruiz-Cruces R, Vano E, Carrera-Magariño F. et al. Diagnostic reference levels and complexity indices in interventional radiology: a national programme. Eur Radiol 2016; 26 (12) 4268-4276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kohlbrenner R, Kolli KP, Taylor AG. et al. Radiation dose reduction during uterine fibroid embolization using an optimized imaging platform. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28 (08) 1129-1135.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Durrani RJ, Fischman AM, van der Bom IM. et al. Radiation dose reduction utilizing noise reduction technology during uterine artery embolization: a pilot study. Clin Imaging 2016; 40 (03) 378-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schernthaner RE, Haroun RR, Nguyen S. et al. Characteristics of a new X-ray imaging system for interventional procedures: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018; 41 (03) 502-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Scheurig-Muenkler C, Powerski MJ, Mueller JC, Kroencke TJ. Radiation exposure during uterine artery embolization: effective measures to minimize dose to the patient. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 38 (03) 613-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shah A, Das P, Subkovas E, Buch AN, Rees M, Bellamy C. Radiation dose during coronary angiogram: relation to body mass index. Heart Lung Circ 2015; 24 (01) 21-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lacayo EA, Khera SS, Spies JB. Impact of patient and procedure-related factors on radiation exposure from uterine artery embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020; 43 (01) 120-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Das R, Lucatelli P, Wang H, Belli AM. Identifying the learning curve for uterine artery embolisation in an interventional radiological training unit. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 38 (04) 871-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar