1. Dose reduction of occupational exposure in cardiac catheterization and angiography

Occupational exposure to scattered radiation and protective equipment was assessed in 4 medical institutions in Kyushu, Japan. The areas where scattered radiation occurred, the scattered radiation dose in the operator's position, fluoroscopy time, the number of cinematography sessions, and annual number of patients were assessed, and the annual scattered radiation dose to the operator was estimated. Approximately 90% of scattered radiation was generated by the subject and the collimator. Measurement of scattered radiation during coronary arteriography yielded a dose of 255-1200 [μSv/hr.] during fluoroscopy and 3.8-26.7 [μSv/10 sec.] during radiography. The duration of fluoroscopy for ablation was much longer than during general examinations and PTCA, suggesting a possible contribution to occupational exposure. The data for the past 5 years show no marked change in total number of catheterizations, but the number of ablations has rapidly increased. Ablation requires specific skills, and thus it is frequently performed by only a few staff members, resulting in exposure being concentrated in a few specific persons. The estimated doses of scattered radiation to the eyes and thyroid gland, which are assumed to be the most highly exposed sites, were 116.2 [mSv/year] during fluoroscopy and 8.9 [mSv/year] during radiography, for a total of 125.1 [mSv/year]. This dose is very close to the maximum occupational exposure dose recommended by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), i.e., 150 [mSv/year]. A protective device that does not impose a burden on the operator or limit the functions of x-ray units was installed on top of the examining table as a measure to reduce the occupational dose. In an experiment using this device the scattered radiation dose during inguinal puncture decreased from 0.8 [mSv/hr.] to 0.02 [mSv/hr.], and the shielding rate was 2.5%. The dose was reduced 97.5%. The authors conclude that radiological personnel must make further efforts to promote the use of protective equipment against occupational exposure. (K.H.)