Remarkable reduction of exposure rate in patients with stress-only myocardial perfusion scan: Let’s safe mankind from unjustified radiation exposure

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Nuclear Cardiology, Karachi Institute of Heart Diseases, Karachi, Pakistan AND Department of Nuclear Medicine, Dr. Ziauddin Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan

2 Department of Nuclear Cardiology, Karachi Institute of Heart Diseases, Karachi, Pakistan AND Department of Radiology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan

3 Department of Nuclear Cardiology, Karachi Institute of Heart Diseases, Karachi, Pakistan

4 Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

Abstract

Introduction: To measure radiation exposures rate in low-risk patients having stress-only and stress-rest myocardial perfusion imaging.
Methods: This was a prospective study conducted from January 2012 till November 2012 upon patients with low pre-test probability for coronary artery disease (CAD). A stress MPI (stress-only if MPI is normal and no resting study) followed by a resting MPI study (same day) if stress study was positive or equivocal. Exposure rates (in milli-Roentgen/hour, mR/hr) from injected patients at 1 meter distance were measured at 10 minutes, 1 hour and at time of releasing patients in both groups.
Results: Total 369 patients were included and 104 (28%) patients had stress-only and 265 (72%) had stress-resting studies. Mean administered 99mTc-MIBI dose in Stress-only and Stress-rest groups was 8 ±1 mCi and 24 ±03 mCi respectively (p<0.05).  Exposure rates(in mR/hr) within 10 min, 1 hour and at release time in Stress-only and stress-rest groups were  0.394, 0.294, 0.194and 1.540, 1.431, 1.207 respectively (p<0.05). Mean stay of patients in laboratory was 90 ±39 minute in Stress-only and 156 ±53 minute in Stress-Rest group (p <0.0001). There was a significantly widening gap between exposure rates from patients with Stress-only and stress-rest protocols as 26:74%, 21:79% and 16:84% at 10 min, 1 hour and at time of release respectively.

Conclusion: We conclude that adopting a Stress-only MPI protocol in low risk patients ensures significantly lower radiation doses to patients and technologists. A worldwide paradigm shift in nuclear cardiology practice would safe mankind from unjustified radiation exposure.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Report No. 160, NCRP, 2009.
Kaufmann PA, Knuuti J. Ionizing radiation risks of cardiac imaging: estimates of the immeasurable. Eur Heart J. 2011 Feb;32(3):269-71. 
International Atomic Energy Agency, Justification of medical exposure in diagnostic imaging. Proceedings of an International Workshop. Brussels, 2–4 September 2009.
Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC, Van Decker WA, Yakovlevitch M. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010 Aug;17(4):709-18.
Duvall WL, Guma KA, Kamen J, Croft LB, Parides M, George T, Henzlova MJ. Reduction in occupational and patient radiation exposure from myocardial perfusion imaging: impact of stress-only imaging and high-efficiency SPECT camera technology. J Nucl Med. 2013 Aug;54(8):1251-7.
Gibson PB, Demus D, Noto R, Hudson W, Johnson LL. Low event rate for stress-only perfusion imaging in patients evaluated for chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Mar 20;39(6):999-1004.
Zaman M, Fatima N, Samad A, Ishaq M, Rasheed Z, Baloch DJ, Rehman K, Bano J, Asif M. Prognostic value of stress-only gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: Time for paradigm shift. PJR. 2010:20(1):12-16.
Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jan 19;55(3):221-30.
Duvall WL, Wijetunga MN, Klein TM, Razzouk L, Godbold J, Croft LB, Henzlova MJ. The prognosis of a normal stress-only Tc-99m myocardial perfusion imaging study. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010 Jun;17(3):370-7.  
Einstein AJ, Weiner SD, Bernheim A, Kulon M, Bokhari S, Johnson LL, Moses JW, Balter S. Multiple testing, cumulative radiation dose, and clinical indications in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. JAMA. 2010 Nov 17;304(19):2137-44.
Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention. 2012 Jan;7(9):1081-6.
Johnson KJ, Alexander BH, Doody MM, Sigurdson AJ, Linet MS, Spector LG, Hoffbeck W, Simon SL, Weinstock RM, Ross JA. Childhood cancer in the offspring born in 1921-1984 to US radiologic technologists. Br J Cancer. 2008 Aug 5;99(3):545-50.
Roman E, Doyle P, Ansell P, Bull D, Beral V. Health of children born to medical radiographers. Occup Environ Med. 1996 Feb;53(2):73-9.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Recent applications of the NCRP public dose limit recommendation for ionizing radiation. NCRP Statement No. 10, December 2004;1-7. 
Rozanski A, Gransar H, Hayes SW, Min J, Friedman JD, Thomson LE, Berman DS. Temporal trends in the frequency of inducible myocardial ischemia during cardiac stress testing: 1991 to 2009.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Mar 12;61(10):1054-65.
Iranian Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Volume 22, Issue 1 - Serial Number 41
Serial number: 41
January 2014
Pages 11-15

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics