There’s good news and bad news from a new study in Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology that tracks 40 years of occupational radiation dose to radiologic technologists who assist with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. The good news is that radiation dose is low and trending lower over time; the bad news is that dose to RTs can vary based on work setting.
As we discussed last month, interventional radiology has delivered major benefits in patient care, replacing invasive surgery for many clinical applications.
- But the downside of interventional procedures is that they are performed for extended periods under fluoroscopy guidance, and more complex procedures are requiring longer times with the fluoro beam on – potentially leading to more radiation exposure.
Researchers from the NIH wanted to investigate how changes in interventional use over the past 40 years affected occupational radiation dose exposure to RTs, while also looking at the impact of radiation exposure control methods.
- They reviewed records from 1980 to 2020, starting with RTs participating in the US Radiologic Technologists (USRT) research study who they then linked to data submitted to radiation dosimeter badge maker Landauer.
In all, 19.7k RTs who reported assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures over the study period were included, with researchers finding …
- Median annual radiation dose of 0.65 mSv, well below the occupational limit of 20 mSv
- Median doses were highest in the 1980s and decreased over time, reflecting greater awareness of patient radiation dose and better radiation protection gear
- A second peak in radiation dose happened from 1999-2011, most likely due to more sensitive dosimeters
- RTs who worked closer to patients (<3 feet) had higher median annual dose, at 1.20 mSv
- RTs who reported assisting with ≥ 20 procedures per month had higher dose, at 0.75 mSv
The researchers concluded that their findings show that radiation dose control measures are working, and better radiation dosimetry technology offers a far more accurate picture of how much dose RTs are actually exposed to.
The Takeaway
The study’s findings should give technologists who assist with interventional procedures peace of mind that their radiation dose exposure is well within established limits. But as always with radiation exposure, vigilance is warranted.
