Patient exposure to X‐rays during coronary angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention: Results of a multicenter national survey

Abstract

This survey showed a very high rate of compliance with dose registration during CA and PCI in French nonacademic hospitals. Updated diagnostic reference values are established for the main dose parameters (KAP, 45 Gy·cm(2) for CA, 95 Gy·cm(2) for PCI).

Assessment of Local Dose Reference Values for Recanalization of Chronic Total Occlusions and Other Occlusions in a High-Volume Catheterization Center

“…For the CA and PCI groups, this work found similar values to RAY'ACT but again much lower than GACI and Queenland studies, especially for PCI. 6,7,19 Procedure-specific DRLs may be preferred in interventional cardiology to better match the complexity of procedures. For example, different DRLs have been published for CAs and PCIs.…”

“…For example, different DRLs have been published for CAs and PCIs. 7,19 DRLs were defined for recanalization of all occlusions types and CTOs. For CTOs, 2 different levels were even advocated for, one for the antegrade approach and one for the retrograde approach, considering they were of increased difficulty compared with other angioplasties.…”

“…The first step of the study dealt with defining the center's local DRLs for coronary angiography (CA) and PCIs excluding CTOs, to benchmark them with published DRL, especially in the French context. 6,7 The second phase was focused on analyzing the local practice to determine local DRLs for all CTOs and suggesting approach-specific DRLs for antegrade and retrograde CTOs.…”

Role of Experience, Leadership and Individual Protection in the Cath Lab – A Multicenter Questionnaire and Workshop on Radiation Safety

“…27.2 Gy × cm 2 , respectively [25,26]. Great DAP differences, however, existed among course participants even after the program, with a range from 3.8 to 44.0 Gy × cm 2 ( • " Fig.…”

“…This represents a joint challenge for cardiology societies, radiation safety commissions, supervising authorities and physicists toward setting achievable objectives that require unreserved educational cooperation with the practicing cardiology community in every cath lab. Whereas benchmarking registries [25,26] and single-center approaches [22,31] typically evaluate fluoroscopy time, DAP, and/or skin dose, our ELICIT workshop focuses on specific reasons for suboptimal practice, indicates main individual challenges and promotes the following: (1) disclosure of daily attitudes and technical settings by understandable evaluation of relevant dose parameters; (2) definition of educational benchmarks; (3) enhanced motivation for optimization by pseudonymized feedback; (4) competitive comparison of individual performance with various strategies, as implemented by widely accepted cardiac centers; and (5) qualification of participants towards autonomous reduced-radiation improvements and situation-adapted operation of pre-selectable interfaces. This ELICIT sub-study for the cohort of interventionalists who completed both the course program and the presented questionnaire is not without limitations.…”