Interventional Radiology Staff Research Articles

Improving Time to Angioembolization for Trauma Care: Novel Smartphone Application.

Timely angiographic embolization of abdominopelvic injuries is a hallmark of a high-functioning trauma center. Yet, the process depends on the timely mobilization of interventional radiology staff. Smartphone technology to notify and mobilize staff may be a viable option. To describe the incorporation of a smartphone application into our trauma workflow process previously developed for stroke care. In 2022, our Level I trauma center implemented a smartphone application with three simultaneously occurring functions: (a) high-definition image viewing on the phone; (b) text messaging thread for all parties; and (c) a single-call activation system for staff mobilization. The application was initially developed to notify interventional radiologists of large-vessel occlusions in victims of stroke and, at our request, was modified to fit our trauma workflow process. The smartphone application company developed a new program, installed the application on trauma service smartphones, and provided educational in-services over a 1-month period. The application was then integrated into our trauma workflow process. The trauma surgeon and the interventional radiologist can now simultaneously view high-definition images on their smartphones. Text messages are accessible to all team members. The staff is notified and mobilized with the singlecall smartphone application, preventing the placing and returning of phone calls. Smartphone technology enhances timely interventional radiology staff response for hemorrhagic patients requiring emergent angioembolization.

Background Factors Affecting the Radiation Exposure of the Lens of the Eye among Nurses in Interventional Radiology: A Quantitative Observational Study.

With the International Commission on Radiological Protection's (ICRP) reduction in the radiation dose threshold for cataracts, evaluating and preventing radiation exposure to the lens of the eye among interventional radiology (IR) staff have become urgent tasks. In this study, we focused on differences in lens-equivalent dose (HT Lens) to which IR nurses in three hospitals were exposed and aimed to identify factors underlying these differences. According to analyses of time-, distance-, and shielding-related factors, the magnitude of the HT Lens dose to which IR nurses were exposed could be explained not by time or shielding but by the distance between the X-ray exposure field and the location of the IR nurse. This distance tended to be shorter in hospitals with fewer staff. The most effective means of reducing the exposure of the lenses of IR nurses' eyes to radiation is to position them at least two meters from the radiation source during angiography procedures. However, some hospitals must provide IR departments with comparatively few staff. In work environments where it is infeasible to reduce exposure by increasing distance, interventions to reduce time by managing working practices and investment in shielding equipment are also important. This study was not registered.

Radiation dose to multidisciplinary staff members during complex interventional procedures

IntroductionComplex interventional radiology procedures involve extensive fluoroscopy and image acquisition while staff are in-room. Monitoring occupational radiation dose is crucial in optimization. The purpose was to determine radiation doses received by staff involved in complex interventional procedures performed in a dedicated vascular or neuro intervention room. MethodsIndividual real-time radiation dose for all staff involved in vascular and neuro-interventional procedures in adult patients was recorded over a one-year period using wireless electronic dosimeters attached to the apron thyroid shield. A reference dosimeter was attached to the C-arm near the tube housing to measure scattered, unshielded radiation. Radiology staff carried shoulder thermo-luminescent dosimeters with monthly read-out to monitor dose over time. ResultsOccupational radiation dose was measured in 99 interventional procedures. In many cases prostate artery embolization procedures exposed radiologists to high radiation doses with a median of 15.0 μSv and a very large spread, i.e. 0.2–152.5 μSv. In all procedures except uterine fibroid embolization radiographers were exposed to lower doses than those of radiologists, with endovascular aortic repair being the procedure with highest median exposure to assisting radiographers, i.e. 2.2 μSv ranging from 0.1 to 36.1 μSv. Median radiation dose for the reference dosimeter was 670 μGy while median staff dose for all procedures combined was 3.2 μGy. ConclusionRadiation doses for multiple staff were determined and the ratio between staff dose and reference dosimeter indicated proper use of shielding in general. Some high-dose procedures may need further optimization for certain staff members, especially those not primarily employed in radiology. Implications for practiceThe study provides benchmark doses that may be used widely in audits and in the ongoing effort to optimize radiation protection for staff in interventional radiology.

Reducing the Environmental and Economic Costs of Single-Department Infectious Waste Disposal

PurposeThe aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of zero-cost interventions on the reduction of infectious waste (IW) stream production in interventional radiology (IR). MethodsThis quality improvement initiative was developed using needs identification through department-wide meetings with IR stakeholders (physicians, nurses, and radiologic technologists). Department leadership identified and implemented two interventions to reduce disposal of noninfectious waste (NIW) in the IW stream. First, hospital waste management provided focused education for sorting IW versus NIW to IR staff members. Next, the number of IW bins was reduced, and the IW bins were strategically placed on the perimeter of the room. Radiologic technologists tracked IW and NIW bags per case for 25 case days before the intervention and 175 case days after the intervention. A run chart was created to visualize change over time. Wilcoxon rank sum and signed rank tests were performed to evaluate the difference in IW and NIW bags per case before and after the intervention. A goal of significant reduction in NIW stream production was set. ResultsBefore the intervention, the production of IW and NIW bags per case was similar (median, 1.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 0.86-1.31] vs 1.1 [IQR, 0.86-1.40]; P = .20). After the intervention, IW bags per case decreased (median, 1.0 [IQR, 0.86-1.31] vs 0.05 [IQR, 0.00-0.13]; P < .001). Fewer IW bags than NIW bags were produced per case after the intervention (median, 0.05 [IQR, 0.00-0.13] vs 1.53 [IQR, 1.30-1.76]; P < .001). ConclusionsZero-cost interventions, including focused education, stakeholder engagement, and strategic placement of waste bins, can significantly reduce the environmental and economic impact of waste produced in IR.

A practical method for routine eye lens dosimetry of staff in interventional radiology.

Hospital staff doing fluoroscopy-guided interventions receive the highest doses and are at risk of exceeding the new occupational eye lens dose limit of 20mSv. Since the introduction of the new limit in the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations different eye lens dose monitoring techniques have been tested on phantoms. This study uses real-life dose data to assess the need for routine eye lens dose monitoring. The correlation of eye lens dose and Hp (10) measured with a whole-body dosemeter above the lead apron was investigated as an alternative to dedicated eye lens dosimetry. A survey taken among the medical personnel allowed to determine the preferred method for measuring eye lens doses in daily practice.

Contrast Venography Versus Intravenous Ultrasound in Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Access Dysfunction

Contrast Venography Versus Intravenous Ultrasound in Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Access Dysfunction

CURRENT TRENDS OF RADIATION PROTECTION EQUIPMENT IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY.

Interventional radiology represents subspecialty of radiology, which does not use imaging modalities only for diagnostics, but mostly for therapeutic purposes. Realisation of interventional procedures is done through X-rays, which replaces direct visual control done by interventional radiologist or cardiologist. For the targeted reduction of the radiation exposure, the interventional radiology staff use personal protective equipment. Usually, aprons with lead-equivalent are used, which provide protection for 75% of the radiosensitive organs. As the eye lens and thyroid gland belong to the radiosensitive organs, lead eyeglasses and thyroid collar are commonly used for their protection. Cap and gloves with lead-equivalent can be utilised as an additional personal protective equipment, that is commercially available. Innovative protection systems, such as mobile radiation protection cabin and suspended radiation protection, have been designed to ensure better radiation protection and safety. These systems provide the comfort for the interventional radiologists at work, while offering better protection against ionising radiation.

Improving the patient experience during musculoskeletal interventional procedures.

In the patient-centered practice of musculoskeletal interventional radiology, pre-procedure, intra-procedure, and post-procedure factors impact the patient's overall experience. Opportunities to improve the patient experience begin before the patient procedure starts, with smooth scheduling of the appointment, a positive office environment, and appropriate communication by the musculoskeletal interventional radiology staff before the procedure, including clear expectations regarding wait times. The initial conversation between the radiologist and the patient, including the informed consent process, is a crucial opportunity for creating rapport with the patient and generating trust in the radiologist. Being able to interpret a patient's verbal and non-verbal cues during this conversation can reduce anxiety and enhance relaxation. During the procedure, there are interventions which can decrease anxiety and reduce the perception of pain by the patient. These include psychological interventions such as self-induced hypnosis, communication-based interventions such as empathic communication to mold a patient's interpretation of anxiety and painful stimuli, and the use of ancillary tools such as music or video stimulation. Finally, clear post-procedure expectations regarding post-procedure pain and its management and assurances of access to the musculoskeletal interventional radiology team can facilitate an uncomplicated post-procedure recovery.

Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians.

Interventional radiology (IVR) procedures are associated with increased radiation exposure and injury risk. Furthermore, radiation eye injury (i.e., cataract) in IVR staff have also been reported. It is crucial to protect the eyes of IVR physicians from X-ray radiation exposure. Many IVR physicians use protective Pb eyeglasses to reduce occupational eye exposure. However, the shielding effects of Pb eyeglasses are inadequate. We developed a novel shield for the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians. The novel shield consists of a neck and face guard (0.25 mm Pb-equivalent rubber sheet, nonlead protective sheet). The face shield is positioned on the left side of the IVR physician. We assessed the shielding effects of the novel shield using a phantom in the IVR X-ray system; a radiophotoluminescence dosimeter was used to measure the radiation exposure. In this phantom study, the effectiveness of the novel device for protecting against radiation was greater than 80% in almost all measurement situations, including in terms of eye lens exposure. A large amount of scattered radiation reaches the left side of IVR physicians. The novel radiation shield effectively protects the left side of the physician from this scattered radiation. Thus, the device can be used to protect the face and eyes of IVR physicians from occupational radiation exposure. The novel device will be useful for protecting the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians from radiation, and thus could reduce the rate of radiation injury. Based on the positive results of this phantom study, we plan to perform a clinical experiment to further test the utility of this novel radiation shield for IVR physicians.

Staff eye lens dose in interventional radiology and cardiology in Finland

PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the eye lens and whole-body radiation doses to interventional radiology and cardiology staff in two Finnish hospitals. MethodsSimultaneous measurements of personal dose equivalent quantities Hp(3) and Hp(10) were conducted in clinical conditions during different radiological and cardiological interventional procedures. In order to study the feasibility to estimate eye lens dose with Hp(10) measured over the protective apron or thyroid shield, the ratio between measured Hp(3) and Hp(10) was investigated. Results and conclusionsApplying the obtained ratio on Hp(10) records from national dose register showed that only a small number of interventional radiologists and cardiologists in Finland may exceed eye lens equivalent dose levels of 20 mSv per year or 100 mSv in five consecutive years, but likely do not exceed 50 mSv in a single year. For the most Finnish interventionalists, the eye lens dose is well below 10 mSv per year. Nurses and radiographers assisting in interventions are, on average, less exposed than interventionalists, and will not exceed 20 mSv per year. Based on our results, Hp(10) measured over the protective apron or thyroid shield provides a conservative estimate of the eye lens dose for interventional radiologists and cardiologists, provided that appropriate protective glasses are used.

Impact of the incorrect use of lead drapes on staff and patient doses in interventional radiology

To evaluate the usefulness of commercially available scatter reduction drapes in mitigating staff exposure in interventional radiology and the potential harmful effects of drape malpositioning in terms of exposure levels to both patients and staff. An anthropomorphic phantom was irradiated on an angiography device under three scenarios: no drape and correct and incorrect drape positioning. Different levels of incorrect drape positioning relative to the field-of-view (FOV) were evaluated: slight, mild and severe. Real-time dosimeter systems (positioned on the operator’s eye, chest and thyroid) were used to evaluate accumulative doses and dose rates. Different obstruction levels were evaluated and compared to the observer’s perception. Additionally, patient exposure was evaluated for all scenarios using a dose area product (DAP). Up to a mild obstruction, by using the drape a dose reduction of up to 86% was obtained while a severe obstruction produced a 1000% increase in exposure, respectively for all dosimeter positions compared to the use of no drape. A similar order of magnitude was observed for patient exposure. Good agreement was obtained for the observer perception of the FOV obstruction up to 25% of the FOV; for larger obstructions, an overestimate of the obstruction was observed. Patient lead drapes can reduce staff doses in interventional radiology procedures even when mildly malpositioned and obscuring the FOV. Special attention to protective drape positioning is necessary, since the severe obstruction of the FOV results in a large increase in both operator and patient exposure.

Collar Badge Lens Dose Equivalent Values among United States Physicians Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures

PurposeTo describe the range of occupational badge dose readings and annualized dose records among physicians performing fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures using job title information provided by the same 3 major medical institutions in 2009, 2012, and 2015. Materials and MethodsThe Radiation Safety Office of selected hospitals was contacted to request assistance with identifying physicians in a large commercial dosimetry database. All entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedure staff were excluded. Monthly and annualized doses were described with univariate statistics and box-and-whisker plots. ResultsThe dosimetry data set of interventional radiology staff contained 169 annual dose records from 77 different physicians and 698 annual dose records from 455 nonphysicians. The median annualized lens dose equivalent values among physicians (11.9 mSv; interquartile range [IQR], 6.9–20.0 mSv) was nearly 3-fold higher than those among nonphysician medical staff assisting with FGI procedures (4.0 mSv; IQR, 1.8–6.7 mSv) (P < .001). During the study period, without eye protection, 25% (23 of 93) of the physician annualized lens dose equivalent values may have exceeded 20 mSv; for nonphysician medical staff, this value may have been exceeded 3.5% (6 of 173) of the time. However, these values did not account for eye protection. ConclusionsThe findings from this study highlight the importance of mitigating occupational dose to the eyes of medical staff, particularly physicians, performing or assisting with FGI procedures. Training on radiation protection principles, the use of personal protective equipment, and patient radiation dose management can all help ensure that the occupational radiation dose is adequately controlled.

Occupational radiation exposure to the lens of the eye in interventional radiology

Cataract formation is a tissue reaction effected by radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occupational exposure to the lens of the eye of interventional radiologists (IR's) and interventional radiology staff, with and without lead glasses. Ethical approval was provided by the hospital research and ethics committee. A prospective cohort study was performed over 1 year, doses recorded, lifetime dose (estimated at working 5 days in angiography, for 30 years) was estimated and dose compared to current guidelines. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs; Landauer, Glenwood, USA) Hp(3) were placed on both the exterior and interior side of the personal lead glasses worn by three interventional radiologists and two radiographers. They were monitored during all procedures performed within 1 year. Lead glasses (AttenuTech® Microlite® , Florida, USA) with specifications were 0.75 mm lead equivalent front shield, and Side shield 0.3 mm Pb equivalent. A control TLD was placed in the storage location of the lead glasses when not in use. Yearly dose was measured and lifetime dose was calculated from the data obtained. Calculation of dose received per day(s) spent performing procedures for both annual and lifetime exposure was performed. In addition a record of occurrence of splashes on glasses was made after each case. Eye doses without protection were double the recommended limits for both annual and lifetime dose. For interventional radiologists working between 3 and 4 or more days in the lab per week, annual dose thresholds would be exceeded (20 mSv/year averaged over 5 years, no more than 50 mSv in 1 year). If interventional radiologists worked between 3 and 4 or more days in the lab, lifetime dose thresholds would be exceeded (500 mSv lifetime dose). Lead glasses reduced radiation exposure by an average of 79%. If lead glasses were worn no interventional radiologists would exceed annual or lifetime dose thresholds to the eyes even if working 5 days per week as the primary operator. Radiographers would not exceed annual or lifetime dose thresholds even without lead glasses. Splash incidents occurred for all interventional radiologists and one radiographer. The use of lead glasses even in this small study resulted in a decreased dose of radiation to the lens of the eye. Regular use of radiation protection eyewear will reduce eye dose for primary proceduralists to well below yearly and lifetime thresholds.

Creating Solutions for Meeting the Challenges of Maintaining a Healthy Work Practice: Our Experience at a County Hospital

Creating Solutions for Meeting the Challenges of Maintaining a Healthy Work Practice: Our Experience at a County Hospital

PERSONAL DOSIMETRY USING MONTE-CARLO SIMULATIONS FOR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE MONITORING IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY: THE RESULTS OF A PROOF OF CONCEPT IN A CLINICAL SETTING.

Exposure levels to staff in interventional radiology (IR) may be significant and appropriate assessment of radiation doses is needed. Issues regarding measurements using physical dosemeters in the clinical environment still exist. The objective of this work was to explore the prerequisites for assessing staff radiation dose, based on simulations only.Personal dose equivalent, Hp(10), was assessed using simulations based on Monte Carlo methods. The position of the operator was defined using a 3D motion tracking system. X-ray system exposure parameters were extracted from the x-ray equipment. The methodology was investigated and the simulations compared to measurements during IR procedures.The results indicate that the differences between simulated and measured staff radiation doses, in terms of the personal dose equivalent quantity Hp(10), are in the order of 30–70 %. The results are promising but some issues remain to be solved, e.g. an automated tracking of movable parts such as the ceiling-mounted protection shield.

ASSESSMENT OF WHOLE BODY, SKIN AND EYE LENS DOSES OF THE INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGISTS AT SELECTED HOSPITALS IN IRAN.

High radiation doses to the body may lead to the stochastic/deterministic effects of ionizing radiation on the critical organs as well as causing the cataract in eye lens of the clinical staff in interventional radiology. In this study, the received doses of the eyes, skin and whole body of 38 clinical staff including physicians, residents, nurses and radiotechnologists in cardiac angiography departments in three selected hospitals were assessed using personal dosemeters during two bimonthly dosimetry periods. Moreover, the correlation coefficients among the measured dose components including eye lens dose, skin dose and whole body dose equivalent in both area of under and over their lead-apron were calculated for all these occupational groups. The results show that the occupational annual dose values of the clinical staff are below the annual dose limits recommended by International Commission on Radiation Protection. Furthermore, among the measured dose components, the highest correlation coefficient value was obtained between the eye lens dose and personal dose equivalent measured over the lead apron for all the occupational groups.

Future scenarios and opportunities for interventional radiology in the post COVID-19 era.

Pandemic outbreak has led health systems worldwide into a rapid reorganization in response to coronavirus infections, forcing interventional radiology units to adapt. Interventional procedures have evolved in number, type and setting and have arguably been optimized as a direct consequence of this pandemic; a result that will undoubtedly lead to radical change within the specialty. This paper explores the future of interventional radiology from various perspectives, and forecasts the new opportunities that will be presented, from the adaptation of the interventional radiology staff and angiography suite, to the immunological environment, and through to digital medical education. We analyze the economic impact and the future relationship we can expect with the rest of the medical industry.

Characterisation and mapping of scattered radiation fields in interventional radiology theatres

We used the Timepix3 hybrid pixel detector technology in order to determine the exposure of medical personnel to ionizing radiation in an interventional radiology room. We measured the energy spectra of the scattered radiation generated by the patient during X-ray image-guided interventional procedures. We performed measurements at different positions and heights within the theatre. We first observed a difference in fluence for each staff member. As expected, we found that the person closest to the X-ray tube is the most exposed while the least exposed staff member is positioned at the patient’s feet. Additionally, we observed a shift in energy from head to toe for practitioners, clearly indicating a non-homogenous energy exposure. The photon counting Timepix3 detector provides a new tool for radiation field characterisation that is easier-to-use and more compact than conventional X-ray spectrometers. The spectral information is particularly valuable for optimising the use of radiation protection gear and improving dosimetry surveillance programs. We also found the device very useful for training purposes to provide awareness and understanding about radiation protection principles among interventional radiology staff.

How to Manage the COVID-19 Diffusion in the Angiography Suite: Experiences and Results of an Italian Interventional Radiology Unit

Introduction: The management of the diffusion of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents a massive problem for healthcare systems worldwide and Interventional Radiology (IR) is a fundamental hospital unit which must continue to provide its service. The aim of this article is to summarize the preventive measures taken in our IR unit and to report the results of these measures over a 7 weeks period. Material and Methods: Between the 25th of February, when we started to apply the recommended containing measures, and the 6th of April 2020, when all the IR staff started to undergo nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs screening, a total of 25 healthcare operators worked at our IR unit. Operators who, during this period, also worked in other hospital units such as diagnostic emergency department or other healthcare facilities, were excluded. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs screening and blood samples for specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG-IgM were retrospectively evaluated. Results: The overall procedures number decreased by a rate of 33% and twenty-three (16%) were performed in confirmed or strongly suspected COVID-19 patients. Two procedures were performed in non-suspected ones, who revealed positive in the following hospitalization days. Seventeen operators were included in the study. Only one of them resulted positive at the swabs, with an estimated infection rate in our IR unit of 6%. Specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG-IgM resulted negative in all the operators included. Conclusion: Our experience demonstrates that applying adequate measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 infection spread can efficiently reduce the viral transmission among IR healthcare workers.

Endovascular Therapy for Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Proposed Algorithm.

Endovascular Therapy for Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Proposed Algorithm.