The radiation dose received by cardiologists during percutaneous coronary interventions, electrophysiology procedures and other interventional cardiology procedures can vary by more than an order of magnitude for the same type of procedure and for similar patient doses. There is particular concern regarding occupational dose to the lens of the eye. This document provides recommendations for occupational radiation protection for physicians and other staff in the interventional suite. Simple methods for reducing or minimizing occupational radiation dose include: minimizing fluoroscopy time and the number of acquired images; using available patient dose reduction technologies; using good imaging-chain geometry; collimating; avoiding high-scatter areas; using protective shielding; using imaging equipment whose performance is controlled through a quality assurance programme; and wearing personal dosimeters so that you know your dose. Effective use of these methods requires both appropriate education and training in radiation protection for all interventional cardiology personnel, and the availability of appropriate protective tools and equipment. Regular review and investigation of personnel monitoring results, accompanied as appropriate by changes in how procedures are performed and equipment used, will ensure continual improvement in the practice of radiation protection in the interventional suite. These recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology and electrophysiology have been endorsed by the Asian Pacific Society of Interventional Cardiology, the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the Latin American Society of Interventional Cardiology, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

No abstract

The radiation dose received by cardiologists during percutaneous coronary interventions, electrophysiology procedures, and other interventional cardiology procedures can vary by more than an order of magnitude for the same type of procedure and for similar patient doses. There is particular concern regarding occupational dose to the lens of the eye. This document provides recommendations for occupational radiation protection for physicians and other staff in the interventional suite. Simple methods for reducing or minimizing occupational radiation dose include minimizing fluoroscopy time and the number of acquired images; using available patient dose reduction technologies; using good imaging-chain geometry; collimating; avoiding high-scatter areas; using protective shielding; using imaging equipment whose performance is controlled through a quality assurance program; and wearing personal dosimeters so that you know your dose. Effective use of these methods requires both appropriate education and training in radiation protection for all interventional cardiology personnel, and the availability of appropriate protective tools and equipment. Regular review and investigation of personnel monitoring results, accompanied as appropriate by changes in how procedures are performed and equipment used, will ensure continual improvement in the practice of radiation protection in the interventional suite. These recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology and electrophysiology have been endorsed by the Asian Pacific Society of Interventional Cardiology, the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the Latin American Society of Interventional Cardiology, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

ASD sizing by MRI using bFFE and phase-contrast protocols correlated well with TEE estimations. PC-MRI provided additional information on ASD shapes and proximity to adjacent structures.

No abstract

In 2010, the Asian Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASCI) provided recommendations for cardiac CT and MRI, and this document reflects an update of the 2010 ASCI appropriate use criteria (AUC). In 2016, the ASCI formed a new working group for revision of AUC for noninvasive cardiac imaging. A major change that we made in this document is the rating of various noninvasive tests (exercise electrocardiogram, echocardiography, positron emission tomography, single-photon emission computed tomography, radionuclide imaging, cardiac magnetic resonance, and cardiac computed tomography/angiography), compared side by side for their applications in various clinical scenarios. Ninety-five clinical scenarios were developed from eight selected pre-existing guidelines and classified into four sections as follows: 1) detection of coronary artery disease, symptomatic or asymptomatic; 2) cardiac evaluation in various clinical scenarios; 3) use of imaging modality according to prior testing; and 4) evaluation of cardiac structure and function. The clinical scenarios were scored by a separate rating committee on a scale of 1–9 to designate appropriate use, uncertain use, or inappropriate use according to a modified Delphi method. Overall, the AUC ratings for CT were higher than those of previous guidelines. These new AUC provide guidance for clinicians choosing among available testing modalities for various cardiac diseases and are also unique, given that most previous AUC for noninvasive imaging include only one imaging technique. As cardiac imaging is multimodal in nature, we believe that these AUC will be more useful for clinical decision making.

No abstract

No abstract