Image Gently, Step Lightly: Practice of ALARA in Pediatric Interventional Radiology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Image Gently, Step Lightly: Practice of ALARA in Pediatric Interventional Radiology PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6bf94b-NmI4O



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Image Gently, Step Lightly: Practice of ALARA in Pediatric Interventional Radiology

Description:

Image Gently, Step Lightly: Practice of ALARA in Pediatric Interventional Radiology John M Racadio, MD1 Bairbre Connolly, MB2 1 Cincinnati Children s Hospital ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:72
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 40
Provided by: RACM5W
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Image Gently, Step Lightly: Practice of ALARA in Pediatric Interventional Radiology


1
Image Gently, Step Lightly Practice of ALARA
inPediatric Interventional Radiology
  • John M Racadio, MD1
  • Bairbre Connolly, MB2
  • 1 Cincinnati Childrens Hospital Medical Center
  • 2 The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto

2
Why is this important?
  • In March, 2009, the National Council on Radiation
    Protection and Measurement released a critical
    report that indicated that radiation dose to the
    United States population had risen dramatically
    since the early 1980s.
  • IR procedures are the third largest contributor
    to medical radiation to the US public.
  • Children are more sensitive to radiation effects
    and have a longer life span during which manifest
    possible changes as a result of radiation
    exposure.
  • Children who undergo interventional procedures
    may have a chronic illness and receive a higher
    lifetime cumulative dose secondary to repeat
    procedures and exposure.

Kase KR (2009) Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the
Population of the United States. National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements,
Bethesda, Maryland. Swoboda N, Armstrong D, Smith
J, et al. (2005) Pediatric patient surface doses
in neuroangiography. Pediatr Radiol
35859-866. Rose S, Andre M, Roberts A, et al.
(2001) Integral role of interventional radiology
in the development of a pediatric liver
transplantation program. Pediatr Transplant
5331-338. Ahmed B, Shroff P, Connolly B, et al.
(2008) Estimation of Cumulative Effective Doses
From Diagnostic and Interventional Radiological
Procedures in Pediatric Oncology Patients.
Society for Pediatric Radiology, Scottsdale,
Arizona. Thierry-Chef I, Simon S, Miller D (2006)
Radiation dose and cancer risk among pediatric
patients undergoing interventional neuroradiology
procedures. Pediatr Radiol 36 Suppl 2159-162.
3
ALARA
  • As low as reasonably achievable
  • General principle guiding radiation exposure
  • Keep radiation dose exposure to patient as low as
    reasonable for each procedure, given clinical
    need and patient factors

4
Learning objectives
  • Be familiar with practical strategies that are
    useful to reduce dose to patients staff
    undergoing image guided procedures.
  • Learn about possible QA options to consider
    implementing in our own suites to improve our
    practice of radiation protection
  • Briefly describe some recent technologic advances
    and their impact on IR Dosimetry.

5
Practical Tips to Reduce Radiation Dose to
Patients and IR Staff
6
Guiding Principles
  • Approach Radiation protection
  • patient and staff
  • Patient Radiation dose is optimized when imaging
    is performed with the least amount of radiation
    required to provide adequate image quality and
    image guidance.

7
Guiding Principle
  • Staff Scattered radiation in the room is
    directly proportional to the patient dose if
    patient dose is reduced, so too is the dose to
    the operator and team.
  • To optimize radiation for the patient and
    minimize radiation for staff

GOAL
8
Unique Features of Pediatric Intervention
  • Pediatric size (500gm 100Kg)
  • Proximity of operator to the beam
  • Trade off Need access to child
    but want hands out of the beam
  • Size of the I.I. relative to the child
  • Need for magnification ( dose)
  • Pediatric patient more radiation sensitive
  • Pediatric longevity
  • Use US where possible

9
In Practice
  • How many times have we
  • left our hands in the beam?
  • expediency over personal safety?
  • our backs to the X-ray source?
  • unaware of our foot on the pedal?
  • pushed away a protective barrier?

10
Proper Radiological Positioning
  • Maximize distance between x-ray tube patient.
  • Minimize distance between patient Image
    Intensifier.
  • Stand on side of the Image Intensifier
  • Inverse square law make use of it!


Rad Techs play crucial role
11
Control Fluoroscopy
  • Collimate
  • Limit use to necessary evaluation of moving
    structures.
  • Employ last-image-hold to review findings
  • Unnecessary/Inadvertent fluoro Make Aware!
  • Time bell warning
  • Reduce fluoroscopy pulses/sec to as low as
    possible/suitable (30/sec, 15/sec, 7.5/sec,
    3.5/sec)
  • System in the room increases dose awareness
  • IG Checklist

ALARM
PEMNET
12
Reduce Dose
  • Reduce field size (collimate)
  • Minimize field overlap.
  • Use low pulsed fluoroscopy
  • (7 or 3/sec)
  • Use low frame rate (4 or 2 or
    1/sec)
  • Avoid unnecessary runs

13
Personal Protection - Hands
  • Keep hands out of the beam
  • Finger /ring badges
  • Angle of beam off hands
  • Collimation
  • Care

14
Control Images
  • Limit acquisition to what is essential for
    diagnostic and documentation purposes.
  • Last image hold
  • Think - Plan each run
  • Think - frames / second
  • Think - magnification

15
Personal Protection - Shields
  • Lead table skirt / drape
  • Over head shields
  • Mobile Devices
  • Radioprotective non-lead

  • patient drapes


16
Personal Protection Awareness of Geometry
  • Maintain awareness of body position relative to
  • the x-ray beam
  • Horizontal x-ray beam operator and staff should
    stand on the side of the image receptor (I.I.)
  • Vertical x-ray beam the image receptor should be
    above the table.
  • Angle beam where possible

17
Personal Protection - Wear
  • Well fitted lead apron (knees)
  • Leaded glasses (with sides)
  • Thyroid shield
  • Lead gloves anesthetist -
    operator

18
Team Ergonomics
  • Train operators and staff in ergonomics of the
    room - good positioning when using fluoroscopy
    equipment periodically assess their practice.
  • Inverse Square Law
  • Front or Back lead
  • Identify and provide the best personal protective
    gear for operators and staff.
  • Acknowledge expertise vigilance
  • of our technologists

19
Summary
Goal To optimize radiation for the
patient and minimize radiation for staff 1.
AWARE 2. ALARA - Steps to reduce patient dose 3.
ALERT - Steps to minimize staff dose
20
Potential Strategies to Optimize Radiation
Exposure from Interventional Fluoroscopy
21
Ideal World
  • Clinical Success
  • The Least Amount of Radiation
  • Adequate Image Guidance
  • Established Practice Guidelines
  • Based on scientifically well designed studies.

22
Todays Reality
  • Many IR procedures require high quality images,
    long fluoroscopy time or both.
  • There are NO consensus guidelines.
  • Practices vary from institution to institution,
    and even within an institution.

23
Where Can We Start?
  • Optimize operating parameters for x-ray machines.
  • Regularly inspect and maintain equipment.
  • Adequately train staff on equipment capabilities
    re image quality and dose.
  • Develop QA and QC Dosimetry Programs

24
Equipment
  • Include Medical Physicist in decisions.
  • Machine Selection and Maintenance
  • Incorporate Dose-Reduction Technologies and
    Dose-Measurement Devices in equipment.
  • Establish Facility Quality Improvement Program
  • Appropriate x-ray equipment QA program
  • Overseen by a medical physicist
  • Equipment evaluation/inspection

25
Education and Training
  • Comprehensive Training of Operators
  • Radiation Biology, Physics, and Safety
  • Attend high-quality courses or complete a
    self-training course given by appropriate
    professional societies.
  • Comply with applicable state requirements.

26
Dosimetry Records
  • Measure and Record Patient Radiation Dose
  • Record Fluoroscopy Time
  • Record Available Measures
  • DAP (Dose Area Product)
  • Cumulative Dose
  • Skin Dose
  • Inform patients who have received high doses to
    examine x-ray beam entrance site for skin
    erythema.

27
Dosimetry Follow-UP
  • Develop Methods to Quantify Late Effects
  • Design medical records to clearly document the
    number and types of interventional procedures
    received by the patient.
  • Maintain a database of all patients with
    procedures and dose information.
  • Review dose information to identify patients with
    high doses (gt3Gy) for follow-up.
  • Establish procedures for follow-up including
    skin examination at 30 days.

28
Dosimetry Follow-UP
  • CCHMC Policy
  • Machine specific action level
  • for patient call back based on
  • 3 Gy (300 rad) entrance skin dose.

29
Physician-Patient Interactionpre-procedure
  • Ask patient about prior history of interventional
    fluoroscopy.
  • Communicate details of the procedure, patient
    dose, and immediate and long-term health effects
    to patients and their primary care providers.
  • Counsel patients on radiation-related risks, as
    appropriate, along with the other risks and
    benefits associated with the procedure.

30
Physician-Patient Interactionpost-procedure
  • Schedule a 30 day Follow-Up Visit if
  • Radiation Skin Dose /gt 2 Gy, or
  • Cumulative Dose /gt 3 Gy
  • Send interventional fluoroscopy procedure
    description, operative notes, doses and
    information about the possible short-term and
    long term effects to the patients primary care
    provider.
  • The patient and primary care physician should be
    specifically requested to notify the operator if
    observable skin effects occur.

31
Monitor and ImproveOperator Performance
  • Audit outcomes of procedures (including patient
    radiation dose for each operator).
  • Share information learned in audits with
    operators and provide additional training as
    needed.
  • Provide annual radiation safety education for all
    operators.
  • Collaborate in clinical trials to identify best
    practices for optimizing doses to patients and
    minimizing dose to health care providers.

32
Technologic Advances Impact on IR Dosimetry
33
Technologic Advances
  • 3D Rotational Angiography
  • Flat Detector Systems
  • Cone Beam CT (CT-Like Imaging)

34
3D Rotational Angiography
35
Cone Beam CT (CT-Like Imaging)
These are NOT images from a CT. These are from
IR flat detector c-arm
36
3D CT Guidance
37
Our Collective Responsibility
  • More dosimetry studies in modern Pediatric IR
    suites need to be performed.
  • Manufacturers need to be made aware of the
    importance of limiting radiation exposure to
    children.
  • New technologies should be embraced, but
    dosimetry evaluation must be a priority.

38
References
  • Tsapaki V (2001) Patient and staff dosimetry
    problems in interventional radiology. Radiat
    Prot Dosimetry 94 113-116.
  • Staniszewska MA, Jankowski J (2000) Personnel
    exposure during interventional radiologic
    procedures. Med Pr 51 563-571.
  • Hidajat N, Vogl T, Biamino G, et al (1996)
    Radiation exposure in interventional radiology as
    exemplified by the chemoembolization of
    hepatocellular carcinoma and laser angioplasty of
    the pelvic arteries. Rofo 164 249-256.
  • Meier N, Lenzen, H, Sudhoff A, et al (1995)
    Exposure of personnel in interventional
    radiology. Radiologe 35 152-155.
  • NiklasonLT, Marx MV, Chan HP (1993)
    Interventional radiologists  ocupational
    radiation doses and risks. Radiology
    187 729-733.
  • Hall E (2002) Introduction to session I 
    Helical CT and cancer risk. Pediatr Radiol
    32 225.227.
  • Bacher K, Bogaert E, Lapere R, et al (2005)
    Patient-specific dose and radiation risk
    estimation in pediatric cardiac catheterization.
    Circulation 111 83-89.
  • Swoboda NA, Armstrong DG, Smith J, et al (2005)
    Pediatric patient surface doses in
    neuroangiography. Pediatr Radiol 35 859-866.
  • Streulens L, Vanhavere F, Bosmans H, et al (2005)
    Skin dose measurements on patients for
    diagnostic and interventional neuroradiology  a
    multicentre study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry
    114 143-146.
  • Fletcher DW, Miller DL, Balter S, Taylor MA
    (2002) Comparison of four techniques to estimate
    radiation dose to skin during angiographic and
    interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc
    Interv Radiol 13 391-397.
  • Ropolo R, Rampado O, Isoardi P, et al (2001)
    Evaluation of patient doses in interventional
    radiology. Radiol Med 102 384-390.
  • Vano E, Gonzalez L, Fernandez JM, Guibelalde E
    (1995) Patient dose values in interventional
    radiology. Br J Radiol 68 1215-1220.
  • Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, et al (2003)
    Radiation doses in interventional radiology
    procedures the RAD-IR study  part I  overall
    measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol
    14 711-727.
  • van de Putte S, Verhaegen F, Taeymans Y, Thierens
    H (2000) Correlation of patient skin doses in
    cardiac interventional radiology with dose-area
    product. Br J Radiol 73 504-513.

39
References
  • Faulkner K (2001) Dose displays and record
    keeping. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 94 143-145.
  • King JN, Champlin AM, Kelsey CA, Tripp DA (2002)
    Using a sterile disposable protective surgical
    drape for reduction of radiation exposure to
    interventionalists. AJR Am J Roentgenol
    178 153-157.
  • Padovani R, Foti C, Malisan MR (2001) Staff
    dosimetry protocols in interventional radiology.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry 94 193-196.
  • Whitby M, Martin CJ (2005) A study of the
    distribution of dose across the hands of
    interventional radiologists and cardiologists.
    Br J Radiol 78 219-229.
  • Jankowski J, Chruscielewski W, Olszewski J, Cygan
    M (2002) System for personal dosimetry in
    interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry
    101 221-224.
  • Anderson NE, King SH, Miller KL (1999)
    Variations in dose to the extremities of
    vascular/interventional radiologists. Health
    Phys 76 S39-40.
  • Vehmas T (1993) What factors influence
    radiologists finger doses during percutaneous
    drainages under fluoroscopic guidance? Health
    Phys 65 161-163.
  • Pages J (2000) Effective dose and dose to the
    crystalline lens during angiographic procedures.
    JBR-BTR 83 108-110.
  • Wyart P, Dumant D, Gourdier M, et al (1997)
    Contribution of self-surveillance of the
    personnel by electronic radiation dosemeters in
    invasive cardiology. Arch Mal Cœur Vaiss
    90 233-238.
  • Tsapaki V, Kottous S, Vano E, et al (2004)
    Occupational dose constraints in interventional
    cardiology procedures  the DIMOND approach.
    Phys Med biol 49 997-1005.
  • Hayashi N, Sakai T, Kitagawa M, et al (1998)
    Radiation exposure to interventional radiologists
    during manual-injection digital subtraction
    angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol
    21 240-243.
  • National Cancer Institute and Society of
    Interventional Radiology (2005) Interventional
    fluoroscopy reducing radiation risks for
    patients and staff. NIH publication no. 05-5286.
  • Cardella JF, Miller DL, Cole PE, et al (2003)
    Society of Interventional Radiology position
    statement on radiation safety. J Vasc Interv
    Radiol 14 S387.
About PowerShow.com