Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In fluoroscopy-guided interventional practices, new dose reduction systems have proved to be efficient in the reduction of patient doses. However, it is not clear whether this reduction in patient dose is proportionally transferred to operators' doses. This work investigates the secondary radiation fields produced by two kinds of interventional cardiology units from the same manufacturer with and without dose reduction systems.Methods:Data collected from a large sample of clinical procedures over a 2-year period (more than 5000 procedures and 340,000 radiation events) and the DICOM radiation dose structured reports were analysed. RESULTS: The average cumulative H(p)(10) per procedure measured at the C-arm was similar for the standard and the dose reduction systems (452 vs 476 μSv respectively). The events analysis showed that the ratio H(p)(10)/KAP at the C-arm was (mean ± SD) 5 ± 2, 10 ± 4, 14 ± 4 and 14 ± 6 μSv·Gy(-1)·cm(-2) for the beams with no added filtration, 0.1, 0.4 and 0.9 mm Cu respectively and suggested that the main cause for the increment of the ratio H(p)(10)/KAP vs the "standard system" is the use of higher beam filtration in the "dose reduction" system. CONCLUSION: Dose reduction systems are beneficial to reduce KAP in patients and their use should be encouraged, but they may not be equally effective to reduce occupational doses. Interventionalists should not overlook their own personal protection when using new technologies with dose reduction systems. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Dose reduction technology in interventional systems may increase scatter dose for operators. Personal protection should not be overlooked with dose reduction systems.