MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943396409 · doi:10.1259/bjr.20181021

Retrospective study of patients radiation dose during cardiac catheterization procedures

2019· article· en· W2943396409 on OpenAlexaff
Beverley Osei, Lu Xu, A. Johnston, Sara Darko, Johnson Darko, Ernest Osei

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Radiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSt Mary's Hospital CentreWestern UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversityGrand River Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventional PCICardiac catheterizationMedicineFluoroscopyKermaPercutaneous coronary interventionDose area productNuclear medicineRadiological weaponRadiologySurgeryCardiologyDosimetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of RadiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207