To clarify whether the radiation dose during interventional radiology(IVR) is lower or higher in flat-panel detector (FPD) systems compared to image intensifier (II.) systems. To explain the methods that can be used to reduce the radiation dose in FPD systems used in IVR.

A primary disadvantage associated with IVR procedures is patient radiation exposure. Currently, IVR X-ray equipment hastended toward the use of a FPD instead of an II. Although FPDs have good fundamental performance compared to IIs, the radiation dose from a FPD during IVR is not clear.

Materials and Methods This study examined 12 X-ray systems in 7 cardiac catheterization laboratories. These facilities each performed more than 70 cardiac IVR procedures annually in and around Sendai, Japan (Table 1). Of the 12 X-ray systems measured, 8 used a FPD and 4 used an II. Table 1. Twelve Radiography Systems of Seven Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. The entrance surface doses with digital cineangiography (duration time: 10 s) and fluoroscopy (duration time: 1 min) were compared for the 12 X-ray systems, using acrylic plates (20...

The average surface doses received during digital cineangiography and fluoroscopy using the FPD and II. systems were similar. FPDs did not reduce the radiation dose. To reduce the radiation dose for IVR systems, even in FPD systems, a lower-dose mode is necessary in cine angiocardiography and pulsed fluoroscopy.

ICRP publication 85: avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Ann ICRP 2001;30/2:Publication 85. Wagner LK, et al. Management of patient skin dose in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:25–33. Wong L, et al. Radiation Injury from a Fluoroscopic Procedure. N Eng J Med 2004;350:e23. Mahesh M. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Fluoroscopy: Patient radiation exposure issues. Radiographics 2001;21:1033–45. Chida K, et al. Total entrance skin dose: An effective indicator of the maximum radiation dose to a patient’s skin during...