Cardiac nuclear medicine, cardiac computed tomography (CT), interventional cardiology procedures, and electrophysiology procedures are increasing in number and account for an important share of patient radiation exposure in medicine. Complex percutaneous coronary interventions and cardiac electrophysiology procedures are associated with high radiation doses. These procedures can result in patient skin doses that are high enough to cause radiation injury and an increased risk of cancer. Treatment of congenital heart disease in children is of particular concern. Additionally, staff(1) in cardiac catheterisation laboratories may receive high doses of radiation if radiological protection tools are not used properly. The Commission provided recommendations for radiological protection during fluoroscopically guided interventions in Publication 85, for radiological protection in CT in Publications 87 and 102, and for training in radiological protection in Publication 113 (ICRP, 2000b,c, 2007a, 2009). This report is focused specifically on cardiology, and brings together information relevant to cardiology from the Commission's published documents. There is emphasis on those imaging procedures and interventions specific to cardiology. The material and recommendations in the current document have been updated to reflect the most recent recommendations of the Commission. This report provides guidance to assist the cardiologist with justification procedures and optimisation of protection in cardiac CT studies, cardiac nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopically guided cardiac interventions. It includes discussions of the biological effects of radiation, principles of radiological protection, protection of staff during fluoroscopically guided interventions, radiological protection training, and establishment of a quality assurance programme for cardiac imaging and intervention. As tissue injury, principally skin injury, is a risk for fluoroscopically guided interventions, particular attention is devoted to clinical examples of radiation-related skin injuries from cardiac interventions, methods to reduce patient radiation dose, training recommendations, and quality assurance programmes for interventional fluoroscopy.

Quality control (QC) in medical imaging is an ongoing process and not just a series of infrequent evaluations of medical imaging equipment. The QC process involves designing and implementing a QC program, collecting and analyzing data, investigating results that are outside the acceptance levels for the QC program, and taking corrective action to bring these results back to an acceptable level. The QC process involves key personnel in the imaging department, including the radiologist, radiologic technologist, and the qualified medical physicist (QMP). The QMP performs detailed equipment evaluations and helps with oversight of the QC program, the radiologic technologist is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the QC program. The continued need for ongoing QC in digital radiography has been highlighted in the scientific literature. The charge of this task group was to recommend consistency tests designed to be performed by a medical physicist or a radiologic technologist under the direction of a medical physicist to identify problems with an imaging system that need further evaluation by a medical physicist, including a fault tree to define actions that need to be taken when certain fault conditions are identified. The focus of this final report is the ongoing QC process, including rejected image analysis, exposure analysis, and artifact identification. These QC tasks are vital for the optimal operation of a department performing digital radiography.

No abstract

Neutron energy spectra and spectra of dose deposition in tissue-equivalent material have been measured for neutron sources produced by 16-, 22-, 35-, and 45.5-MeV deuterons and 22.5-, 35-, 45-, and 65.5-MeV protons incident upon a thick beryllium target. Neutron spectra were measured using time-of-flight techniques and the dose distribution was measured using a 1/2 in. spherical "tissue-equivalent" proportional counter filled with "tissue-equivalent" gas.

This study revealed that SStD measurements yielded good agreement with set kVp, poor agreement with standard HVL determinations, and AK measurements that were substantially different from IC measurements. Discrepancies are partly related to the scattered radiation measured by ICs in determining AK. As a result, IC measurements required for AGD, using currently accepted methodology, typically result in higher AGDs than SStDs, because current methodologies do not account for differing instrument responses to scatter. HVLs reported by SStDs contribute to discrepancies in calculated AGD that depend on kVp and TF. Medical physicists are encouraged to compare their results for SStD instruments using a similar methodology for potential discrepancies with their traditional instruments.