Noise reduction angiographic imaging technology reduces radiation dose during bronchial artery embolization. Issue 97 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Spink, C.; Avanesov, M.; Schmidt, T.; Grass, M.; Schoen, G.; Adam, G.; Koops, A.; Ittrich, H.; Bannas, P.
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 97(2017)
• Page Start: 115
• Page End: 118
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Bronchial artery embolization -- Radiation dosage -- Image-processing technology -- Interventional radiology -- Angiography; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.10.029
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Highlights: Noise reduction imaging technology reduced radiation exposure up to 59%. No significant loss in image quality was observed. Procedure duration and contrast use did not increase significantly. Abstract: Purpose: Comparison of radiation doses in patients undergoing angiographic bronchial artery embolization (BAE) before and after a noise reduction imaging technology upgrade. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 70 patients undergoing BAE. Procedures were performed before (n = 32) and after (n = 38) the technology upgrade containing additional filters and improved image-processing. Cumulative air kerma (AK), cumulative dose area product (DAP), number of exposure frames, total fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast agent were recorded. Mean values were calculated and compared using two-tailed t -tests. DSA image quality was assessed independently by two blinded readers and compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Using the new technology resulted in a significant reduction of 59% in DAP (149.2 (103.1–279.1) vs. 54.8 (38.2–100.7) Gy*cm 2, p < 0.001) and a significant reduction of 60% for AK (1.3 (0.6-1.9) vs. 0.5 (0.3-0.9) Gy, p < 0.001) in comparison to procedures before the upgrade. There was no significant difference between the number of exposure frames in both groups (251 ± 181 vs. 254 ± 133 frames, p = 0.07), time of fluoroscopy (28.8 (18.5-50.4) vs. 28.1 (23.3–38.7) min, p = 0.73), or the amount of contrast agent used (139.5 ± 70.8 vs. 163.1 ± 63.1 ml, p = 0.11). No significant difference regarding image quality could be detected (3 (2, 3) vs. 3 (2–4), p = 0.64). Conclusions: The new angiographic noise reduction technology significantly decreases the radiation dose during bronchial artery embolization without compromising image quality or increasing time of fluoroscopy or contrast volume.