Does reducing radiation levels for procedures affect image quality and radiation to proceduralists? A double-blinded randomised study of two protocols. Issue 2 (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Z.; Phang, C.C.; Tan, R.Y.; Pang, S.C.; Chandramohan, S.; Zhuang, K.D.; Sulaiman, M.S.; Tay, K.H.; Chong, T.T.; Tan, C.S.
• Is Part Of: Clinical radiology. Volume 76:Issue 2(2021)
• Page Start: 157.e1
• Page End: 157.e10
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; Medical radiology; Radiotherapy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.09.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-9260

Abstract

Abstract : AIM: To evaluate the ultra-lose dose imaging protocol (ULDP), compared to the standard low-dose imaging protocol (LDP), which are used for haemodialysis access, in terms of radiation exposure and image quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, institutional review board-approved, prospective, double-blinded randomised controlled study to compare radiation exposure and image quality of the ULDP and LDP. Ten proceduralists, two radiographers, and 11 nurses were enrolled. Radiation exposure during 80 procedures (40 angioplasties and 40 thrombolysis) was recorded (direct radiation to patients from protocol report and scattered radiation to participants from the RaySafe i2 real-time dosimetry system). Baseline characteristics of procedure were recorded. Image quality was assessed subjectively using questionnaires based on the five-point Likert scale after each procedure. RESULTS: Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses (0.506±0.430 versus 0.847±0.965 μSv/s, p =0.044; 0.571±1.284 versus 1.284±1.007 mGy/s, p <0.001; and 0.052±0.071 versus 0.141±0.185 μSv/s, p =0.005, respectively). No significant difference in image quality or duration of procedure was observed (all p values >0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses without compromising the image quality or duration of procedure. Highlights: The use of lower-dose imaging protocol reduces radiation exposure to patients. The benefit of reduced radiation extends to both proceduralists and scrub nurses. The image quality is not compromised despite a lower radiation exposure. The use of lower-dose imaging protocol does not lengthen the procedural duration.