Risk factors of radiation dose in patients undergoing peripherally-inserted central catheter procedure using conventional angiography equipment and flat panel detector-based mobile C-arm fluoroscopy

• Published in: Acta radiologica (1987) Vol. 55; no. 10; p. 1234
• Main Authors: Lee, TaeBum, Shin, Sung Wook, Choi, Dongil, Cho, Sung Ki, Hyun, Dongho, Do, Young Soo, Jeon, SungChae, Cha, BoKyung, Bok, Eun Kyung, Kim, Seonwoo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01-12-2014
• Subjects: Angiography - adverse effects; Angiography - instrumentation; Angiography - methods; Catheterization, Peripheral - methods; Equipment Design; Feasibility Studies; Female; Fluoroscopy - adverse effects; Fluoroscopy - instrumentation; Fluoroscopy - methods; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Radiation Dosage; Radiography, Interventional - adverse effects; Radiography, Interventional - instrumentation; Radiography, Interventional - methods; Risk Factors; Peripherally-inserted central catheter; dose-area product; radiation dose; mobile C-arm fluoroscopy; angiography
• ISSN: 1600-0455
• DOI: 10.1177/0284185113514221

Although peripherally-inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion is commonly performed under fluoroscopic guidance, few reports have addressed performance and dosimetry when PICC is inserted under C-arm fluoroscopy.
To evaluate the risk factors of radiation dose in performing PICC insertion using flat panel detector-based mobile C-arm fluoroscopy and a conventional angiography machine.
Ninety-eight patients underwent the PICC procedure using conventional angiography equipment (n=49) or flat panel detector-based mobile C-arm fluoroscopy (n=49). Data were prospectively analyzed from July to November 2012. Dose-area product (DAP), tube voltage, tube current, fluoroscopy time, and image quality measured on a 5-point scale were estimated and compared using appropriate statistical tests.
There were no significant differences in tube voltage, fluoroscopy time, and image quality between conventional angiography and mobile C-arm fluoroscopy. DAP, mean arm tube current, and tube current in chest fluoroscopy were significantly lower in mobile C-arm fluoroscopy than using the conventional angiography machine (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified tube current in chest fluoroscopy, arm tube current, and fluoroscopy equipment as significant risk factors for elevated radiation dose in PICC insertion.
PICC insertion can be performed using flat panel detector-based mobile C-arm fluoroscopy instead of a conventional angiography machine. Image quality and fluoroscopy time were not different between the two systems and the use of C-arm fluoroscopy significantly reduced radiation dose.