4.7 Article

The appropriate and justified use of medical radiation in cardiovascular imaging: a position document of the ESC Associations of Cardiovascular Imaging, Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Electrophysiology

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 35, Issue 10, Pages 665-672

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht394

Keywords

Cancer; Cardiovascular disease; Imaging; Radiation; Radiological protection; Risk

Funding

  1. CNR-Institute of Clinical Physiology from Sorin, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Medtronic, Malesci
  2. GE Vingmed (Horten, Norway)
  3. SUIT-Heart (Stop Useless Imaging Testing in Heart disease) grant of the Istituto Toscana Tumori (ITT) of the Tuscany Region

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The benefits of cardiac imaging are immense, and modern medicine requires the extensive and versatile use of a variety of cardiac imaging techniques. Cardiologists are responsible for a large part of the radiation exposures every person gets per year from all medical sources. Therefore, they have a particular responsibility to avoid unjustified and non-optimized use of radiation, but sometimes are imperfectly aware of the radiological dose of the examination they prescribe or practice. This position paper aims to summarize the current knowledge on radiation effective doses (and risks) related to cardiac imaging procedures. We have reviewed the literature on radiation doses, which can range from the equivalent of 1-60 milliSievert (mSv) around a reference dose average of 15 mSv (corresponding to 750 chest X-rays) for a percutaneous coronary intervention, a cardiac radiofrequency ablation, a multidetector coronary angiography, or a myocardial perfusion imaging scintigraphy. We provide a European perspective on the best way to play an active role in implementing into clinical practice the key principle of radiation protection that: 'each patient should get the right imaging exam, at the right time, with the right radiation dose'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available