Scatter Radiation Absorbed Dose Distribution in Coronary Angiography: A Measurement-Based Study

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Paramedicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.

3 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Paramedicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran Molecular Medicine Research Center, Hormozgan Health Institute, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran

4 Department of Basic Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 Nuclear Science Research School, Science Research School, Nuclear Science & Technology Research Institute (NSTRI), Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Tehran, Iran


Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the absorbed dose of scatter radiation in coronary angiography.
Material and Methods: The scatter radiation dose was measured for 20 patients at four different heights (50,100, 150, and 165 cm) from the floor. The spatial dose was measured by RTI Piranha r100b solid-state dose probe at different points around the patient in an actual clinical situation and with a phantom. Also, the measurement was repeated using a designed phantom in fluoroscopy and cine mode in posterior anterior (PA), left lateral (LLAT), left posterior oblique (LPO45°), right posterior oblique (RPO45°), and right-lateral (RLAT)projections . Organ-absorbed doses were normalized to dose area product (DAP).  
Results: The dose rate at different heights between the projections on the patient and the phantom as well as organ dose DAP conversion coefficients were different (p˂0.05). It was found that the dose rate changes in fluoroscopic mode compared to cine mode are significantly different (p = 0.001). The dose rate in cine mode is approximately four times that in fluoroscopy mode. The dose rate around the cardiologist's waist could be reduced by 37 – 43 % with a displacement of 20cm away. In this study, the effective dose rate received by the cardiologist’s eyes was higher than those reported by ICRP.
Conclusion: Taking a suitable projection could reduce the dose rate delivered to the angiography team. Further studies should be conducted about the effect of different projections with the same clinical use on dose distribution in coronary angiography to provide the best working conditions for physicians and staff.


Main Subjects

  1. Mc Namara K, Alzubaidi H, Jackson JK. Cardiovascular disease as a leading cause of death: how are pharmacists getting involved?. Integrated pharmacy research & practice. 2019;8:1.
  2. Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI, Alonso A, Beaton AZ, Bittencourt MS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2022 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;145(8):e153-e639.
  4. Tavakoli MB, Jabbari K, Jafari S, Hashemi SM, Akbari M. Evaluating the Absorbed Dose of Skin, Thyroid and Eye in Coronary Angiography CT Imaging and Its Comparison with Conventional Angiography. Journal of Isfahan Medical School. 2011;29(159).
  5. Tavakoli H M, Jabari K, Salman J. SU‐E‐I‐51: Investigation of Absorbed Dose to the Skin, Eyes and Thyroid of Patients during CT Angiography and Comparison with Conventional Angiography. Medical physics. 2012;39(6Part4):3636.
  6. Kočka V. The coronary angiography–An old-timer in great shape. Cor et vasa. 2015;57(6):e419-e24.
  7. Tavakoli MB, Faraji R, Sajjadieh A, Jafari S. Determination of the weighted computed tomography dose index in coronary multidetector computed tomography angiography. Journal of Isfahan Medical School. 2016 Oct 22;34(398):1060-5.
  8. Afzalipour R, Abdollahi H, Hajializadeh M, Jafari S, Mahdavi SR. Estimation of diagnostic reference levels for children computed tomography: A study in Tehran, Iran. International Journal of Radiation Research. 2019;17(3):407-13.
  9. Jafari S, Ghazikhanlu Sani K, Karimi M, Khosravi H, Goodarzi R, Pourkaveh M. Establishment of Diagnostic Reference Levels for Computed Tomography Scanning in Hamadan. Journal of Biomedical Physics & Engineering. 2020;10(6):792.
  10. Schiefer R, Rickli H, Neurauter E, Buser M, Weilenmann D, Maeder MT. Non-invasive assessment prior to invasive coronary angiography in routine clinical practice in Switzerland–Is it according to the guidelines?. Plos one. 2019 Sep 6;14(9):e0222137.
  11. Williams MC, Stewart C, Weir NW, Newby DE. Using radiation safely in cardiology: what imagers need to know. Heart. 2019;105(10):798-806.
  12. Roh Y, Kim J, Park H, Kim J, Ryu D, Chun K, et al. Effect of Exposure Angulation on the Occupational Radiation Exposure during Cardiac Angiography: Simulation Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(15):8097.
  13. Schueler BA, Vrieze TJ, Bjarnason H, Stanson AW. An investigation of operator exposure in interventional radiology. Radiographics. 2006;26(5):1533-41.
  14. Mesbahi A, Aslanabadi N, Mehnati P, Keshtkar A. Evaluation of Patients’ Exposure during Angiography and Angioplasty Procedures in the Angiography Department of Shahid Madani Hospital in Tabriz. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2009;6(1):53-9.
  15. Chida K, Inaba Y, Saito H, Ishibashi T, Takahashi S, Kohzuki M, et al. Radiation dose of interventional radiology system using a flat-panel detector. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2009;193(6):1680-5.
  16. Aichinger H, Dierker J, Joite-Barfuß S, Säbel M. Image Receptors. InRadiation Exposure and Image Quality in X-Ray Diagnostic Radiology. 2012;67-83.
  17. Mohammadi M, Danaee L, Alizadeh E. Reduction of radiation risk to interventional cardiologists and patients during angiography and coronary angioplasty. The Journal of Tehran University Heart Center. 2017;12(3):101.
  18. Martin C. A review of radiology staff doses and dose monitoring requirements. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2009;136(3):140-57.
  19. Ferrari P, Venturi G, Gualdrini G, Rossi P, Mariselli M, Zannoli R. Evaluation of the dose to the patient and medical staff in interventional cardiology employing computational models. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2010;141(1):82-5.
  20. Schultz F, Zoetelief J. Dosemeter readings and effective dose to the cardiologist with protective clothing in a simulated interventional procedure. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2008;129(1-3):311-5.
  21. Struelens L, Carinou E, Clairand I, Donadille L, Ginjaume M, Koukorava C, et al. Use of active personal dosemeters in interventional radiology and cardiology: Tests in hospitals–ORAMED project. Radiation measurements. 2011;46(11):1258-61.
  22. Mesbahi A, Mehnati P, Keshtkar A, Aslanabadi N. Comparison of radiation dose to patient and staff for two interventional cardiology units: a phantom study. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2008;131(3):399-403.
  23. Ubeda C, Vano E, Gonzalez L, Miranda P, Valenzuela E, Leyton F, et al. Scatter and staff dose levels in paediatric interventional cardiology: a multicentre study. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2010;140(1):67-74.
  24. Chida K, Morishima Y, Inaba Y, Taura M, Ebata A, Takeda K, et al. Physician-received scatter radiation with angiography systems used for interventional radiology: comparison among many X-ray systems. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2012;149(4):410-6.
  25. Kuon E, Empen K, Reuter G, Dahm JB. Höhe und Röhrenangulation als die Determinanten der möglichen Untersucher-Ortsdosisleistung in der invasiven Kardiologie. InRöFo-Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren. 2004;176: 739-45.
  26. Fink GE. Radiation safety in fluoroscopy for neuraxial injections. the official scholarly journal of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. 2009;77(4).
  27. Wagner LK, Archer BR, Cohen AM. Management of patient skin dose in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2000;11(1):25-33.
  28. Crowhurst J, Whitby M. Lowering fluoroscopy pulse rates to reduce radiation dose during cardiac procedures. Wiley Online Library. 2018; 247-9.
  29. Pyne CT, Gadey G, Jeon C, Piemonte T, Waxman S, Resnic F. Effect of reduction of the pulse rates of fluoroscopy and CINE-acquisition on X-ray dose and angiographic image quality during invasive cardiovascular procedures. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014;7(4):441-6.
  30. Clerinx P, Buls N, Bosmans H, De Mey J. Double-dosimetry algorithm for workers in interventional radiology. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2008;129(1-3):321-7.
  31. Schultz F, Geleijns J, Spoelstra F, Zoetelief J. Monte Carlo calculations for assessment of radiation dose to patients with congenital heart defects and to staff during cardiac catheterizations. The British journal of radiology. 2003;76(909):638-47.
  32. Heye S, Maleux G, Oyen RH, Claes K, Kuypers DR. Occupational radiation dose: percutaneous interventional procedures on hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts. Radiology. 2012;264(1):278-84.
  33. Lecomte J. Radon and the system of radiological protection. Annals of the ICRP. 2012;41(3-4):389-96.
  34. Koukorava C, Carinou E, Ferrari P, Krim S, Struelens L. Study of the parameters affecting operator doses in interventional radiology using Monte Carlo simulations. Radiation measurements. 2011;46(11):1216-22.
  35. Clouvas A, Xanthos S, Antonopoulos-Domis M, Silva J. Monte Carlo calculation of dose rate conversion factors for external exposure to photon emitters in soil. Health physics. 2000;78(3):295-302.