Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiation dose and diagnostic reference levels for four interventional radiology procedures: results of the prospective European multicenter survey EUCLID

  • Physics
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess information reflecting radiation dose and define diagnostic reference levels (DRL) on a European basis for four interventional radiology (IR) procedures considering clinical indication, anatomical region, and procedure.

Methods

A prospective European study was performed to provide data on the IR procedures percutaneous recanalization of iliac arteries, percutaneous recanalization of femoropopliteal arteries, transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire giving information on procedure, equipment, and protocol. Patient size and weight, experience of the operator graded in number of procedures performed, and complexity level of each procedure were reported. Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries could be surveyed. The percentiles of the kerma-area product, fluoroscopy time, cumulative air kerma at the interventional reference point, and number of images were determined. The impact of equipment, year of installation, and complexity level of the procedure on dose were analyzed.

Results

DRLs based on clinical indication were defined. Dose values varied considerably within hospitals, between them, and within each subgroup of complexity level. The use of state-of-the-art equipment reduced dose significantly by 52%. Although dose also varied within each subgroup of complexity level, for transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, dose significantly correlated with complexity.

Conclusions

This was the first study reporting exposure practice and defining DRLs based on clinical indication for four IR procedures on a European basis. These DRLs can serve as a baseline for comparison with local practice, the study as a guideline for future surveys.

Key Points

• The use of state-of-the-art angiographic equipment reduces dose significantly.

• A significant correlation between radiation dose and complexity level is found.

• Dose values vary considerably, both within and between individual hospitals, and within each complexity level of interventional radiology procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AEC:

Automatic exposure control

CI:

Clinical indication

DRL:

Diagnostic reference level

ESR:

European Society of Radiology

EUCLID:

European Study on Clinical DRLs

fps:

Frames per second

ICRP:

International Commission on Radiological Protection

IR:

Interventional radiology

K a,r :

Cumulative air kerma at the patient entrance reference

NI :

Number of frames in cine mode

pct:

Percentile

P KA :

Kerma-area product

PTA:

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty

PTBD:

Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary drainage

T :

Fluoroscopy time

TACE:

Transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma

References

  1. European Commission (2014) Medical radiation exposure of the European population. Radiation Protection 180. European Commission, Brussels. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/nuclear-energy/radiation-protection/scientific-seminars-and-publications/radiation-protection-publications_en. Accessed 8 Jan 2021

  2. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2008) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation UNSCEAR Report to the General Assembly I:1-24. United Nations, New York. Available via https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2008_1.html. Accessed 8 Jan 2021

  3. Miller DL, Vañó E, Bartal G et al (2010) Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: a joint guideline of the cardiovascular and interventional radiology society of Europe and the society of interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:230–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Council of the European Union (2014) 2013/59/Euratom on basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal of the EU L 13:1-73. European Council, Brussels. Available via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013L0059&qid=1614947445366. Accessed 8 Jan 2021

  5. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2017) Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. ICRP Publication 135. Ann ICRP 46

  6. Miller DL, Hilohi CM, Spelic DC (2012) Patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology in the U.S.: advisory data sets and possible initial values for U.S. reference levels. Med Phys 39:6276–6286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Miller DL, Kwon D, Bonavia GH (2009) Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U.S. practice. Radiology 253:753–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vañó E, Gonzalez L (2001) Approaches to establishing reference levels in interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 94:109–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. European Society of Radiology (2020) EUCLID – European study on clinical diagnostic reference levels for X-ray medical imaging. European Society of Radiology, Vienna. Available via http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/euclid/. Accessed 8 Jan 2021

  10. International Electrotechnical Commission (2017) Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-43: particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for interventional procedures IEC 60601-2-43+AMD1

  11. Ruiz-Cruces R, Vañó E, Carrera-Magariño F et al (2016) Diagnostic reference levels and complexity indices in interventional radiology: a national programme. Eur Radiol 26:4268–4276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fetterly KA, Lennon RJ, Bell MR, Holmes DR, Rihal CS (2011) Clinical determinants of radiation dose in percutaneous coronary interventional procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4:336–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. European Commission (2012) Criteria for acceptability of medical radiological equipment used in diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Radiation Protection 162. European Commission, Brussels. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/nuclear-energy/radiation-protection/scientific-seminars-and-publications/radiation-protection-publications_en. Accessed 8 Jan 2021

  15. International Atomic Energy Agency (2014) Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. General safety requirements part 3. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. Available via https://www.iaea.org/publications/8930/radiation-protection-and-safety-of-radiation-sources-international-basic-safety-standards. Accessed 8 Jan 2021

  16. Vañó E, Gonzalez L, Fernandez JM, Prieto C, Guibelalde E (2006) Influence of patient thickness and operation modes on occupational and patient radiation doses in interventional cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 118:325–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pitton MB, Kloeckner R, Schneider J, Ruckes C, Bersch A, Düber C (2012) Radiation exposure in vascular angiographic procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23:1487–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Balter S, Miller DL, Bushberg JT et al (2014) Outline of administrative policies for quality assurance and peer review of tissue reactions associated with fluoroscopically-guided interventions. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Statement No. 11

  19. Federal Republic of Germany (2018) Radiation protection ordinance. Federal law gazette Part 1 No. 41. Federal Republic of Germany, Bonn. Available at: https://www.bmu.de/en/law/radiation-protection-ordinance-1/. Accessed 8 Jan 2021

  20. Etard C, Bigand E, Salvat C et al (2017) Patient dose in interventional radiology: a multicentre study of the most frequent procedures in France. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4780-5

  21. Schegerer A, Loose R, Heuser LJ, Brix G (2019) Diagnostic reference levels for diagnostic and interventional X-Ray procedures in Germany: update and handling. Rofo 191:739–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmitz D, Vogl T, Nour-Eldin NA et al (2019) Patient radiation dose in percutaneous biliary interventions: recommendations for DRLs on the basis of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 29:3390–3400

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the participating hospitals for their contribution to this study. Furthermore, the support of the representatives of national authorities and professional societies is gratefully acknowledged. In particular, the authors thank Jonathan Clark, Ulrike Mayerhofer-Sebera, and Monika Hierath, ESR, for their untiring commitment in organizing and administrating this project. The EUCLID project was financially supported by the grant ENER/2017/NUCL/SI2.759174 of the European Commission.

Funding

This study has received funding from the European Commission, grant no. ENER/2017/NUCL/SI2.759174.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Protection and Image Processing Systems, Hirslanden AG, Hirslanden Corporate Office, Boulevard Lilienthal 2, 8152, Opfikon-Glattpark, Switzerland

    Alexander A. Schegerer

  2. Department of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany

    Alexander A. Schegerer

  3. Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

    Guy Frija

  4. ESTESC - Coimbra Health School, Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, Rua 5 de Outubro, S. Martinho do Bispo, 3046-854, Coimbra, Portugal

    Graciano Paulo

  5. Department of Radiology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Werner Jaschke

  6. Konstantopoulio General Hospital, Athens, Greece

    Virginia Tsapaki

  7. St Nom la Bretèche, France

    Jacques Repussard

  8. School of Medicine, University of Crete, Iraklion, Crete, Greece

    John Damilakis

Authors
  1. Alexander A. Schegerer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guy Frija
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Graciano Paulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Werner Jaschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Virginia Tsapaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jacques Repussard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Damilakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander A. Schegerer.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Guy Frija.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Boards.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• cross-sectional study

• multicenter study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schegerer, A.A., Frija, G., Paulo, G. et al. Radiation dose and diagnostic reference levels for four interventional radiology procedures: results of the prospective European multicenter survey EUCLID. Eur Radiol 31, 9346–9360 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08029-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08029-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation