Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2016 Dec;26(12):4268-4276.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4334-2. Epub 2016 Jul 6.

Diagnostic reference levels and complexity indices in interventional radiology: a national programme

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Diagnostic reference levels and complexity indices in interventional radiology: a national programme

R Ruiz-Cruces et al. Eur Radiol. 2016 Dec.

Abstract

Objectives: To propose national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for interventional radiology and to evaluate the impact of the procedural complexity on patient doses.

Methods: Eight interventional radiology units from Spanish hospitals were involved in this project. The participants agreed to undergo common quality control procedures for X-ray systems. Kerma area product (KAP) was collected from a sample of 1,649 procedures. A consensus document established the criteria to evaluate the complexity of seven types of procedures. DRLs were set as the 3rd quartile of KAP values.

Results: The KAP (3rd quartile) in Gy cm2 for the procedures included in the survey were: lower extremity arteriography (n = 784) 78; renal arteriography (n = 37) 107; transjugular hepatic biopsies (THB) (n = 30) 45; biliary drainage (BD) (n = 314) 30; uterine fibroid embolization (UFE) (n = 56) 214; colon endoprostheses (CE) (n = 31) 169; hepatic chemoembolization (HC) (n = 269) 303; femoropopliteal revascularization (FR) (n = 62) 119; and iliac stent (n = 66) 170. The complexity involved the increases in the following KAP factors from simple to complex procedures: THB x4; BD x13; UFE x3; CE x3; HC x5; FR x5 and IS x4.

Conclusions: The evaluation of the procedure complexity in patient doses will allow the proper use of DRLs for the optimization of interventional radiology.

Key points: • National DRLs for interventional procedures have been proposed given level of complexity • For clinical audits, the level of complexity should be taken into account. • An evaluation of the complexity levels of the procedure should be made.

Keywords: Clinical audit; Diagnostic reference levels; Interventional radiology; Optimization; Patient doses.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332 - PubMed
    1. Radiol Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;110(5-6):689-98 - PubMed
    1. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Jun;35(3):613-20 - PubMed
    1. Insights Imaging. 2013 Dec;4(6):737-9 - PubMed
    1. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Jun;14 (6):711-27 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources