Patient radiation dose from fluoroscopic-guided transcatheter cardiac aortic valve implantation procedure: A single-center study in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: The trend in the use of fluoroscopic-guided transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasing because the procedure is less invasive than surgical procedure. However, high radiation doses have been reported with the procedure. Moreover, the amount of radiation received by patients undergoing TAVI has never before been registered in Thailand.
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the radiation dose and the effects of sex and body mass index (BMI) on the radiation dose received by patients undergoing TAVI at Chulabhorn Hospital.
Materials and methods: Data were collected on the radiation dose received by patients undergoing the TAVI procedure during the first 26 months after the operation at the Cardiology Center, Chulabhorn Hospital. We recorded patient demographic data including age, sex, and BMI and the following measures of radiation dose from the procedure: the number of exposure images, air kerma-area product (PKA), cumulative air kerma at the patient entrance reference point (Ka,r), and total fluoroscopy time.
Results: In total, 68 patients (35 male and 33 female) underwent TAVI, with median exposure images, PKA, Ka,r, and total fluoroscopy time of 1,067 images, 166.14 Gy/cm2, 1,171.50 mGy, and 31.90 minutes, respectively. The patient’s sex did not affect total fluoroscopy time or the radiation dose received. Patients with BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2 had the highest median values of PKA, Ka,r, and total fluoroscopy time. Moreover, patients with BMI ≥18.5-24.9 kg/m2 received higher doses of radiation than patients with BMI ≥25.0-29.9 kg/m2; the result corresponded with longer total fluoroscopy time in the lower BMI category.
Conclusion: The amount of radiation that patients received during TAVI was appropriate for diagnosis and treatment. However, to ensure patient safety, operators should consider reducing the duration of radiation during the procedure. Data from this study are a starting point for the recording of radiation doses received by patients undergoing TAVI and can be used as a future dose reference.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Personal views expressed by the contributors in their articles are not necessarily those of the Journal of Associated Medical Sciences, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University.
References
Thaden JJ, Nkomo VT, Enriquez-Sarano M. The global burden of aortic stenosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2014; 56(6): 565-71. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2014.02.006.
Moat NE, Ludman P, De Belder MA, Bridgewater B, Cunningham AD, Young C, et al. Long-term out comes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: the UK TAVI (United Kingdom Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(20): 2130-8. doi: 10.1016/j. jacc.2011.08.050.
Shinde S, Talekar D, Sumant O. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Market by Procedure (Transfemoral Procedure, Subclavian Procedure, and Others): Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2021-30. 2021. Allied Market Research. [cited 2022 July 8]. Available from: https://www.alliedmarketresearch .com/tavi-market.
Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ, Van Mieghem NM, Nkomo VT, LeReun CM, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(11): 1002-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.015.
Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 1, characteristics of radiation injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177(1): 3-11. doi: 10.2214/ ajr.177.1.1770003.
Koenig TR, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 2, review of 73 cases and recommendations for minimizing dose delivered to patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177(1): 13-20. doi: 10.2214/ ajr.177.1.1770013.
Sulieman A, and Alkhorayef M. Medical Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions. In (Ed.), Medical Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions. Intech Open. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2008.06.006.
Linet MS, Slovis TL, Miller DL, Kleinerman R, Lee C, Rajaraman P, et al. Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62(2): 75-100. doi: 10.3322/caac.21132.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Radiation Protection and Safety in Medical Uses of Ionizing Radiation, Specific Safety Guides, No.SSG-46, 2018.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Dosimetry in Diagnostic Radiology: An International Code of Practice, Technical Reports Series No. 457, IAEA, Vienna, 2007.
Siiskonen T, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Dabin J, Diklic A, Domienik-Andrzejewska J, Farah J, et al. Establishing the European diagnostic reference levels for interventional cardiology. Phys Med. 2018; 54: 42-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.09.012.
Vañó E, Miller DL, Martin CJ, Rehani MM, Kang K, Rosenstein M, et al.; Authors on behalf of ICRP. ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(1):1-144. doi: 10.1177/0146645317717209.
Sakiyalak P, Slisatkorn W, Pornratanarangsi S, Wongpraparut N, Jakrapanichakul D, Raksamani K, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): first case in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012; 95(1): 124-8.
Loose R, Wucherer M. How to measure/calculate radiation dose in patients? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021; 44(6): 835-41. doi: 10.1007/s00270 -021-02772-x.
Lee MY, Kwon J, Ryu GW, Kim KH, Nam HW, Kim KP. Review of national diagnostic reference levels for interventional procedures. Prog Med Phys. 2019; 30(4):75-88. doi: 10.14316/pmp.2019.30.4.75.
Crowhurst JA, Whitby M, Savage M, Murdoch D, Robinson B, Shaw E, et al. Factors contributing to radiation dose for patients and operators during diagnostic cardiac angiography. J Med Radiat Sci. 2019; 66(1): 20-9. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.315.
Ryckx N, Goy JJ, Stauffer JC, Verdun FR. Patient dose assessment after interventional cardiology procedures: a multi-centric approach to trigger optimisation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016; 169 (1-4): 249-52. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv525.
Daneault B, Balter S, Kodali SK, Williams MR, Généreux P, Reiss GR, et al. Patient radiation exposure during transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures. EuroIntervention. 2012; 8(6): 679-84. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I6A106.
Mettler Jr FA, Mahesh M, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Chambers CE, Elee JG, Frush DP, et al. Patient exposure from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures in the United States: procedure volume and effective dose for the period 2006-2016. Radiology. 2020; 295(2): 418-27. doi: 10.1148/ radiol.2020192256.
Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2019 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019; 139(10): e56-28. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000659.
Gress DA, Dickinson RL, Erwin WD, Jordan DW, Kobistek RJ, Stevens DM, et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 6. a.: Performance characteristics of radiation dose index monitoring systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18(4): 12-22. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12089.
Stecker MS, Balter S, Towbin RB, Miller DL, Vañó E, Bartal G, et al. Guidelines for patient radiation dose management. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009; 20(7): S263-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.037.
Kuon E, Glaser C, Dahm JB. Effective techniques for reduction of radiation dosage to patients undergoing invasive cardiac procedures. Br J Radiol. 2003; 76(906): 406-13. doi: 10.1259/ bjr/82051842.
Carroll JD, Mack MJ, Vemulapalli S, Herrmann HC, Gleason TG, Hanzel G, et al. STS-ACC TVT registry of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 76(21): 2492-516. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.595.
Osei B, Xu L, Johnston A, Darko S, Darko J, Osei E. Retrospective study of patients radiation dose during cardiac catheterization procedures. Br J Radiol. 2019; 92(1099): 20181021. doi: 10.1259/ bjr.20181021.
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(1): 21-5. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc. 2014.05.018.
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(1):120-6. doi: 10.1007/ s00270-019-02321-7.
Department of Medical sciences. National Diagnostic Reference Levels in Thailand 2021. 2021 (in Thai).
Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Schueler BA, Geisinger M, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003; 14(6): 711-27. doi: 10.1097/01.rvi.0000079980. 80153.4b.
Signorotto P, Del Vecchio A, Montorfano M, Maisano F, Giagnorio M, Bellanca R, et al. Dosimetric data and radiation risk analysis for new procedures in interventional cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010; 142(2-4): 201-8. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncq208.
Alli O, Rihal CS, Suri RM, Greason KL, Waksman R, Minha S, et al. Learning curves for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER-I trial: Technical performance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 87(1): 154-62. doi: 10.1002/ ccd.26120.
Feghali JA, Delépierre J, Belac OC, Dabin J, Deleu M, De Monte F, et al. Patient exposure dose in interventional cardiology per clinical and technical complexity levels. Part 1: Results of the VERIDIC project. Acta Radiol. 2021: 2841851211061438. doi: 10.1177/02841851211061438.