Estimating the Reduction in the Radiation Burden From Nuclear Cardiology Through Use of Stress-Only Imaging in the United States and Worldwide

Not availabl

Comparison of Radiation Doses and Best-Practice Use for Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in US and Non-US Laboratories: Findings From the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study

not availabl

Nuclear cardiology practice and associated radiation doses in Europe: results of the IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study (INCAPS) for the 27 European countries

Purpose: Nuclear cardiology is widely used to diagnose coronary artery disease and to guide patient management, but data on current practices, radiation dose-related best practices, and radiation doses are scarce. To address these issues, the IAEA conducted a worldwide study of nuclear cardiology practice. We present the European subanalysis. Methods: In March 2013, the IAEA invited laboratories across the world to document all SPECT and PET studies performed in one week. The data included age, gender, weight, radiopharmaceuticals, injected activities, camera type, positioning, hardware and software. Radiation effective dose was calculated for each patient. A quality score was defined for each laboratory as the number followed of eight predefined best practices with a bearing on radiation exposure (range of quality score 0 – 8). The participating European countries were assigned to regions (North, East, South, and West). Comparisons were performed between the four European regions and between Europe and the rest-of-the-world (RoW). Results: Data on 2,381 European patients undergoing nuclear cardiology procedures in 102 laboratories in 27 countries were collected. A cardiac SPECT study was performed in 97.9 % of the patients, and a PET study in 2.1 %. The average effective dose of SPECT was 8.0 ± 3.4 mSv (RoW 11.4 ± 4.3 mSv; P < 0.001) and of PET was 2.6 ± 1.5 mSv (RoW 3.8 ± 2.5 mSv; P < 0.001). The mean effective doses of SPECT and PET differed between European regions (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). The mean quality score was 6.2 ± 1.2, which was higher than the RoW score (5.0 ± 1.1; P < 0.001). Adherence to best practices did not differ significantly among the European regions (range 6 to 6.4; P = 0.73). Of the best practices, stress-only imaging and weight-adjusted dosing were the least commonly used. Conclusion: In Europe, the mean effective dose from nuclear cardiology is lower and the average quality score is higher than in the RoW. There is regional variation in effective dose in relation to the best practice quality score. A possible reason for the differences between Europe and the RoW could be the safety culture fostered by actions under the Euratom directives and the implementation of diagnostic reference levels. Stress-only imaging and weight-adjusted activity might be targets for optimization of European nuclear cardiology practice

Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices andradiationexposure: results from the 65 country IAEA nuclear cardiology protocols cross-sectional study (INCAPS)

Aims To characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiationoptimizing 'best practices' worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose. Methods and results We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March-April 2013. Eight 'best practices' relating to radiation exposurewere identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more 'best practices' had lower EDs Conclusion Marked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globally

Opportunities for improvement on current nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure in Latin America: Findings from the 65-country IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols cross-sectional Study (INCAPS)

Background: Comparison of Latin American (LA) nuclear cardiology (NC) practice with that in the rest of the world (RoW) will identify areas for improvement and lead to educational activities to reduce radiation exposure from NC. Methods and Results: INCAPS collected data on all SPECT and PET procedures performed during a single week in March-April 2013 in 36 laboratories in 10 LA countries (n = 1139), and 272 laboratories in 55 countries in RoW (n = 6772). Eight “best practices” were identified a priori and a radiation-related Quality Index (QI) was devised indicating the number used. Mean radiation effective dose (ED) in LA was higher than in RoW (11.8 vs 9.1 mSv, p < 0.001). Within a populous country like Brazil, a wide variation in laboratory mean ED was found, ranging from 8.4 to 17.8 mSv. Only 11% of LA laboratories achieved median ED <9 mSv, compared to 32% in RoW (p < 0.001). QIs ranged from 2 in a laboratory in Mexico to 7 in a laboratory in Cuba. Three major opportunities to reduce ED for LA patients were identified: (1) more laboratories could implement stress-only imaging, (2) camera-based methods of ED reduction, including prone imaging, could be more frequently used, and (3) injected activity of 99mTc could be adjusted reflecting patient weight/habitus. Conclusions: On average, radiation dose from NC is higher in LA compared to RoW, with median laboratory ED <9 mSv achieved only one third as frequently as in RoW. Opportunities to reduce radiation exposure in LA have been identified and guideline-based recommendations made to optimize protocols and adhere to the “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle