Retrospective study of patients radiation dose during cardiac catheterization procedures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Cardiac catheterization procedures provide tremendous benefits to modern healthcare and the benefit derived by the patient should far outweigh the radiation risk associated with a properly optimized procedure. With increasing utilization of such procedures, there is growing concern regarding the magnitude and variations of dose to patients associated with procedure complexity and techniques parameters. Therefore, this study investigated radiation dose to patients from six cardiac catheterization procedures at our facility and suggest possible initial dose values for benchmark for patient radiation dose from these procedures. This initial benchmark data will be used for clinical radiation dose management which is essential for assessing the impact of any quality improvement initiatives in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the dose parameters of 1000 patients who underwent various cardiac catheterization procedures: left heart catheterization (LH), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), complex PCI, LH with complex PCI, LH with PCI and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacemaker in our cardiac catheterization laboratories. Patient’s clinical radiation dose data [kerma–area–product (KAP) and air-kerma at the interventional reference point (Ka,r)] and technique parameters (fluoroscopy time, tube potential, current, pulse width and number of cine images) along with demographic information (age, height and weight) were collected from the hospital’s RIS (Synapse), Sensis/Syngo Dynamics and Siemens Sensis Stats Manager electronic database. Statistical analysis was performed with the IBM SPSS Modeler v. 18.1 software. Results: The overall patient median age was 67.0 (range: 26.0–97.0) years and the median body mass index (BMI) was 28.8 (range: 15.9–61.7) kg/m2 . The median KAP for the LH, PCI, LH with complex PCI, complex PCI, LH with PCI and CRT-pacemaker procedures are 44.4 (4.1–203.2), 80.2 (18.9–208.5), 83.7 (48.0–246.1), 113.8 (60.9–284.5), 91.7 (6.0–426.0) and 51.1 (7.0–175.9) Gy-cm2 . The median Ka,r for the LH, PCI, LH with complex PCI, complex PCI, LH with PCI and CRT-pacemaker procedures are 701.0 (35.3–3794.0), 1384.7 (291.7–4021.8), 1607.0 (883.5–4448.3), 2260.2 (867.4–5311.9), 1589.3 (100.2–7237.4) and 463.8 (67.7–1695.9) mGy respectively. Conclusion: We have analyzed patient radiation doses from six commonly used procedures in our cardiac catheterization laboratories and suggested possible initial values for benchmark from these procedures for the fluoroscopy time, KAP and air-kerma at the interventional reference point based on our current practices. Our data compare well with published values reported in the literature by investigators who have also studied patient doses and established benchmark dose levels for their facilities. Procedure-specific benchmark dose data for various groups of patients can provide the motivation for monitoring practices to promote improvements in patient radiation dose optimization in the cardiac catheterization laboratories. Advances in knowledge: We have investigated local patients’ radiation doses and established benchmark radiation data which are essential for assessing the impact of any quality improvement initiatives for radiation dose optimization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».