Quantification of Avoidable Radiation Exposure in Interventional Fluoroscopy With Eye Tracking Technology.
Journal
Investigative radiology
ISSN: 1536-0210
Titre abrégé: Invest Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0045377
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
10
3
2020
medline:
10
4
2021
entrez:
10
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Reducing avoidable radiation exposure during medical procedures is a top priority. The purpose of this study was to quantify, for the first time, the percentage of avoidable radiation during fluoroscopically guided cardiovascular interventions using eye tracking technologies. Mobile eye tracking glasses were used to measure precisely when the operators looked at a fluoroscopy screen during the interventions. A novel machine learning algorithm and image processing techniques were used to automatically analyze the data and compute the percentage of avoidable radiation. Based on this percentage, the amount of potentially avoidable radiation dose was computed. This study included 30 cardiovascular interventions performed by 5 different operators. A significant percentage of the administered radiation (mean [SD], 43.5% [12.6%]) was avoidable (t29 = 18.86, P < 0.00001); that is, the operators were not looking at the fluoroscopy screen while the x-ray was on. On average, this corresponded to avoidable amounts of air kerma (mean [SD], 229 [66] mGy) and dose area product (mean [SD], 32,781 [9420] mGycm), or more than 11 minutes of avoidable x-ray usage, per procedure. A significant amount of the administered radiation during cardiovascular interventions is in fact avoidable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32149859
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000658
pii: 00004424-202007000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
457-462Références
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Medical Procedures. NCRP Report No. 168. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2010.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009.
Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. Silver Spring, MD: US Food & Drug Administration; 2019. Available at: www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction. Accessed November 10, 2019.
Smith-Bindman R. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of Cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078.
Brenner DJ, Hricak H. Radiation exposure from medical imaging: time to regulate? JAMA. 2010;304:208–209.
Balter S. Reducing unnecessary radiation in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: vigilance and feedback are needed. Radiology. 2019;290:750–751.
Sahiner B, Pezeshk A, Hadjiiski LM, et al. Deep learning in medical imaging and radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2019;46:e1–e36.
Kim Y, Lee KJ, Sunwoo L, et al. Deep learning in diagnosis of maxillary sinusitis using conventional radiography. Invest Radiol. 2019;54:7–15.
Becker AS, Marcon M, Ghafoor S, et al. Deep learning in mammography. Invest Radiol. 2017;52:434–440.
Mannil M, von Spiczak J, Manka R, et al. Texture analysis and machine learning for detecting myocardial infarction in noncontrast low-dose computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2018;53:338–343.
Higaki T, Nishimaru E, Nakamura Y, et al. Radiation dose reduction in CT using Deep Learning based Reconstruction (DLR): a phantom study. In: 2018. 2018:C-1656.
Liu J, Zarshenas A, Wei Z, et al. Radiation dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) by means of deep-learning-based supervised image processing 2018:14.
Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology. 2010;257:240–245.
Zimmermann JM, Vicentini L, Lohmeyer Q, Taramasso M, Maisano F, Meboldt M. Visual behaviour strategies of operators during catheter-based cardiovascular interventions. 2019.
Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003;35:379–383.
Crowe EM, Gilchrist ID, Kent C. New approaches to the analysis of eye movement behaviour across expertise while viewing brain MRIs. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2018;3:12.
Beatty AL, Magnusson SL, Fortney JC, et al. VA fitheart, a mobile app for cardiac rehabilitation: usability study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2018;5:e3.
Lanzer P, Al-Naser M, Bukhari SS, et al. Eye tracking in catheter-based cardiovascular interventions: early results. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017;4:035502.
Wolf J, Hess S, Bachmann D, et al. Automating areas of interest analysis in mobile eye tracking experiments based on machine learning. J Eye Mov Res. 2018;11:1–11.
He K, Gkioxari G, Dollar P, et al. Mask R-CNN. In: Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis 2017. 2017:2980–2988.
Abhishek D. VGG image annotator 2016. https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/software/via/via-1.0.1.html. Accessed September 18, 2019.
Julious SA. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods by Robert G. Newcombe, Statistics in Medicine 1998;17:857–872. Stat Med. 2005;24:3383–3384.
MATLAB, Version R2018a. rgb2gray function. Natick, MA: The Math Works Inc; 2018.
MATLAB, Version R2018a. Imbinarize function. Natick, MA: The MathWorks Inc; 2018.
Smith R. Hybrid page layout analysis via tab-stop detection. In: 2009 10th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition. Barcelona, Spain: IEEE; 2009:241–245.
Smith R. An overview of the Tesseract OCR engine. In: Ninth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2007). Parana, Brazil: IEEE; 2007:629–633.
Smith R, Antonova D, Lee D-S. Adapting the Tesseract open source OCR engine for multilingual OCR. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multilingual OCR (MOCR ’09). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; 2009:1–8. Article 1.
Tepper SJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure: commentary. Headache. 2008;48:657.
Lehnert BE, Bree RL. Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an Academic Medical Center: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:192–197.
Banerjee I, McNulty JP, Catania D, et al. An investigation of procedural radiation dose level awareness and personal training experience in communicating ionizing radiation examinations benefits and risks to patients in two European cardiac centers. Health Phys. 2019;117:76–83.
Hollingsworth TD, Duszak R, Vijayasarathi A, et al. Trainee knowledge of imaging appropriateness and safety: results of a series of surveys from a large Academic Medical Center. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019;48:17–21.
Faggioni L, Paolicchi F, Bastiani L, et al. Awareness of radiation protection and dose levels of imaging procedures among medical students, radiography students, and radiology residents at an academic hospital: results of a comprehensive survey. Eur J Radiol. 2017;86:135–142.
Scali E, Mayo J, Nicolaou S, et al. Senior medical students' awareness of radiation risks from common diagnostic imaging examinations. Can Med Educ J. 2017;8:e31–e41.
Balter S, Simon D, Itkin M, et al. Significant radiation reduction in interventional fluoroscopy using a novel eye controlled movable region of interest. Med Phys. 2016;43:1531–1538.