Keywords:
Cardiology, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Fluoroscopy, Dosimetry, Radiation safety, Dosimetric comparison, Retrospective, Not applicable, Performed at one institution
Authors:
A. Kolyda1, D. Papadopoulou2, A. Triantafyllis2, G. Christopoulos2, I. Chiotelis2, L. Poulimenos2; 1ATHENS/GR, 2Voula/GR
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-03150
Results
Body weight ranged from 40 to 150Kg. In group A the median and the average weights were 70 and 69.45 Kg, respectively. In group B the median and the average weights were 95.5 and 97.78 Kg, respectively. [Table 2]
Table 2: Median Values
|
|
Kg |
AirKerma(mGy) |
KAP(mGy.cm2) |
Group A (>80Kg) |
95.5 |
975 |
50924 |
Group B (≤80Kg) |
70 |
624 |
29681 |
Total of patients |
80.5 |
799.5 |
40448 |
|
Considering AK and KAP as the tools which measure patients’ radiation exposure, the correlation between the KAP and Kg and the AK and Kg were computed.
The average KAP and AK values were 32910 mGy.cm2, 653 mGy, in group A, and 59524 mGy.cm2, 975mGy, in group B, respectively. The median KAP and AK values, in group A, were 29681 mGy.cm2, 624mGy and 50924mGy.cm2, 975mGy, in group B, respectively. The square of the coefficient of correlation revealed a strong linear correlation between both body weight and KAP (r2=0,566) and body weight and AK (r2=0.586). [Fig. 2, Fig. 3]