EXPEDITED PUBLICATION
Cumulative Exposure to Ionizing Radiation from Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiac Imaging ProceduresA Population-Based Analysis
Jersey Chen, MD, MPH*, ,*,
Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD||,
Reza Fazel, MD, MSc¶,
Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM*, , ,,
Yongfei Wang, MS,
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS#,
Henry H. Ting, MD, MBA**,
Nilay D. Shah, PhD,
Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH and
Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH
* Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Section of Health Policy and Administration, Yale School of Epidemiology and Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale–New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
|| Department of Medicine, Cardiology Division, and Department of Radiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
¶ Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
# Mount Sinai School of Medicine and James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, New York
** Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Preventive Cardiology Center, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Manuscript received December 4, 2009;
revised manuscript received April 23, 2010,
accepted May 27, 2010.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Jersey Chen, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06520 (Email: jersey.chen{at}yale.edu).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures over time in a general population.
Background: Cardiac imaging procedures frequently expose patients to ionizing radiation, but their contribution to effective doses of radiation in the general population is unknown.
Methods: We used administrative claims to identify cardiac imaging procedures performed from 2005 to 2007 in 952,420 nonelderly insured adults in 5 U.S. health care markets. We estimated 3-year cumulative effective doses of radiation in millisieverts from these procedures We then calculated population-based annual rates of radiation exposure to effective doses  3 mSv/year (background level of radiation from natural sources), >3 to 20 mSv/year, or >20 mSv/year (upper annual limit for occupational exposure averaged over 5 years).
Results: A total of 90,121 (9.5%) individuals underwent at least 1 cardiac imaging procedure using radiation. Among patients who underwent  1 cardiac imaging procedures, the mean cumulative effective dose over 3 years was 16.4 mSv (range 1.5 to 189.5 mSv). Myocardial perfusion imaging accounted for 74% of the cumulative effective dose. Overall, 47.8% of cardiac imaging procedures were performed in physician offices; this proportion was higher for myocardial perfusion imaging (74.8%) and cardiac computed tomography studies (76.5%). The annual population-based rate of receiving an effective dose of >3 to 20 mSv/year was 89.0 per 1,000; and 3.3 per 1,000 for cumulative doses >20 mSv/year. Annual effective doses increased with age and were generally higher among men.
Conclusions: Cardiac imaging procedures lead to substantial radiation exposure and effective doses for many patients in the U.S.
Key Words: epidemiology • imaging • radiation
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | CT = computed tomography | | MPI = myocardial perfusion imaging | | PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention | | UHC = United Healthcare |
|
The volume of medical imaging procedures incorporating ionizing radiation has been growing rapidly in recent years, especially for evaluation of cardiovascular conditions (1). In the U.S. alone, the use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) increased from <3 million in 1990 to nearly 10 million by 2002 (2). From 2002 to 2006, the number of procedures in cardiac catheterization laboratories increased by 9% and now exceeds 4 million cases/year (3). The use of cardiac computed tomography (CT), an emerging imaging technology, is expected to increase dramatically over the next decade (4).
Although advances in cardiac imaging procedures have improved the ability to assess and treat cardiovascular conditions, there is a dearth of patient-level data on radiation exposure over time from cardiac imaging procedures despite a rapid increase in their use. A recent study reported that cumulative radiation exposure from general medical imaging is substantial in many individuals (5). In that study, MPI accounted for 22% of total effective dose of radiation received in the study population, but further assessment of other cardiac imaging procedures was not performed. Another study that examined radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures was conducted in the inpatient setting of a single hospital, thus limiting generalizability of radiation exposure over time to the overall population (6). There are also gaps in knowledge regarding the type and location of cardiac imaging services currently performed in the U.S., which is an important consideration given the increase in diagnostic imaging equipment within physician offices (7).
Accordingly, we analyzed administrative claims data over a 3-year period from a large cohort of nonelderly insured adults across the United States to estimate mean cumulative effective doses of radiation attributable to cardiac imaging procedures. This study cohort consisted of beneficiaries age 18 to 64 years old representing a broad spectrum of individuals from the general population. We examined the proportion of individuals who received cumulative effective doses of radiation above 2 thresholds: >3 mSv/year, representing the background level of radiation absorbed from natural sources in the U.S. (8); and >20 mSv/year, representing the upper annual limit for occupational exposure for at-risk workers averaged over 5 years (9). Our overall goals were to describe radiation exposure that accumulates over time in a general population from cardiac imaging procedures and to identify patient groups at risk of high radiation exposure.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Data source and study population.
The study cohort consisted of nonelderly adults with health care benefits administered by United Healthcare (UHC), one of the largest private health care insurance carriers in the U.S. Administrative claims data were collected related to cardiac imaging procedures for 5 major health care markets: Arizona, Dallas, Orlando, South Florida, and Wisconsin. These markets were specifically selected because of their size and the similarity of their insurance products, as well as to provide a degree of geographic diversity. More than three fourths of individuals were enrolled in point-of-service/exclusive provider organization insurance plans with health maintenance organization plans comprising 12% of enrollees in any market. Dallas had the largest proportion of enrollees in preferred provider organization/indemnity plans ( 23%) compared with other markets (2%). Within these 5 health care markets, all adults ages 18 to younger than 65 years old who were alive and continuously enrolled in a health plan administered by UHC between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007, were identified.
Data elements.
UHC administrative data included information on the age and sex of enrollees along with type of medical services performed as classified by CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes and the location where services were delivered. The location of imaging services was recorded in the administrative claims and classified into the following categories: hospital inpatient (performed during a hospital admission), hospital outpatient (performed within hospital facilities for nonhospitalized patients), and physician offices. Cardiac imaging procedures associated with radiation exposure were identified using CPT codes and classified into the following categories: 1) MPI scans with planar imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography, or positron emission tomography imaging; 2) diagnostic cardiac catheterization and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); 3) cardiac blood pool imaging such as an equilibrium radionuclide angiogram and multigated acquisition scan; 4) electrophysiological procedures (including device implantations and arrhythmia ablation procedures); and 5) cardiac CT. Because CPT codes for cardiac CT became effective on January 1, 2006, the analysis only considered cardiac CT studies billed during the 2-year period from 2006 to 2007.
Estimates of radiation dose.
We surveyed the published literature to obtain estimates of effective doses of radiation associated with each cardiac imaging procedure. Effective dose, reported in millisieverts, is a measure of the overall detrimental biological effect of a given radiation exposure. It is calculated by weighting the concentrations of energy deposited in each organ from a given radiation exposure, taking into account the type of radiation and the potential for organ-specific damage in a reference individual (10,11). Effective dose allows for population-level comparisons across different types of radiation exposure (9,12). Estimates for effective dose for cardiac imaging procedures were obtained from a recent systematic review (13) as well as other published sources (14–16). Estimation of the effective dose for MPI studies was a particular challenge given the wide diversity in varying protocols (e.g., single vs. dual isotope) across the nation. We arrived at an estimate of 15.6 mSv for the effective dose of MPI studies after considering the dosimetry of specific radiopharmaceuticals (17), their median injected activities (18), and the distribution of imaging protocols in the U.S. (19). Estimates of effective doses for the cardiac imaging procedures commonly performed in our study cohort are presented in Table 1.
As in a previous study (5), the 3-year cumulative effective dose was calculated for each enrollee according to the type of procedure performed and pattern of claims submitted for that service. For example, if an individual had cardiac imaging procedures across multiple categories on the same day (e.g., MPI followed by PCI), the effective doses associated with each of the procedures were included in the cumulative effective dose for the individual. However, if there were multiple imaging procedures on the same day within a single imaging category, only the procedure with the highest effective dose was added to an individual's cumulative effective dose to avoid any overestimation. For example, accumulating radiation exposures for both diagnostic left heart catheterization and a stent implantation separately would likely overestimate the dose received due to overlapping radiation exposure during these procedures; in this example, only the higher effective dose from stent implantation would be included. This conservative approach reduced the potential risk of overestimating radiation exposure.
Statistical analysis.
The proportion of patients who underwent any cardiac imaging procedure was calculated based on the overall denominator of enrollees and then examined across age, sex, age-sex, and service market categories. The number of cardiac imaging procedures with radiation exposure was calculated by dividing the annual number of procedures by the denominator of enrollees across 5 procedure categories (MPI, cardiac catheterization/PCI, equilibrium radionuclide angiogram/multigated acquisition scan, cardiac CT, and electrophysiological studies) and 3 locations (hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, and physician office) as described previously.
We calculated population-based rates of receiving cumulative effective doses of radiation for 3 categories of radiation exposure based on estimates of background exposure from natural sources in the United States as well as categories currently recommended for radiation protection in medical occupations. The 3 categories were 3 mSv/year (the background level of radiation absorbed from natural sources in the U.S. [8]); >3 to 20 mSv/year, and >20 mSv/year (the upper annual limit for occupational exposure for at-risk workers averaged over 5 years) (9). Numerators for these rates were the number of enrollees with cumulative effective doses in these categories; denominators included the total number of eligible enrollees in the study period. Direct standardization with the overall population as a reference was used to account for differences in the distribution of age and sex across the 5 health care markets (20). The chi-square test was used to assess differences across categories. All statistical analyses were performed with the use of SAS software version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina).
Study oversight.
This study was investigator initiated, and the authors were responsible for its design and the creation of the article. The authors had complete control of the data and independently conducted the analysis. No external funding was provided for this study, and there was no need to obtain approval from UHC before its submission for publication.
|
Results
|
|---|
The study population consisted of 952,420 nonelderly adults with continuous enrollment in health insurance programs administered by UHC from 2005 to 2007. Mean age was 35.6 ± 23.0 years, and there were 499,342 (52.4%) women. The largest number of enrollees came from the Dallas market area (298,747), whereas the smallest number of enrollees was located in the Orlando market area (n = 133,561).
During the study period, a total of 90,121 (9.5%) enrollees underwent at least 1 cardiac imaging procedure associated with radiation exposure over the 3-year study period (Table 2). The proportion of enrollees who underwent at least 1 cardiac imaging procedure increased with age, ranging from 1.5% in patients 18 to 34 years old to 20.9% in patients 55 to 64 years old. A higher proportion of men underwent cardiac imaging procedures compared with women (10.5% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.0001). The proportions of enrollees undergoing any cardiac imaging procedures were highest in the South Florida and Orlando health care markets compared with the 3 remaining health care markets.
A total of 172,194 cardiac imaging procedures with radiation exposure were performed over the 3-year study period. Table 3
reports the number of cardiac imaging procedures performed per 1,000 enrollees/year. Overall, the annual rate of use of cardiac imaging procedures was 60.3 per 1,000 enrollees. MPI was the most common cardiac imaging procedure performed; the second most commonly performed procedure was cardiac catheterization and/or PCI. In general, annual rates for all cardiac imaging procedures were higher in men with the exception of equilibrium radionuclide angiograms/multigated acquisition scans. Overall, approximately one-half of all cardiac imaging procedures took place in physician offices (47.8%), with the remainder divided between hospital inpatients (26.4%) and nonhospitalized patients who underwent imaging in hospital facilities (25.5%). The majority of MPI and cardiac CT studies were performed in physician offices (74.8% and 76.5%, respectively).
The total cumulative effective dose received by the study population from cardiac imaging procedures over 3 years was 2,084,221 mSv. Among 90,121 patients undergoing at least 1 cardiac imaging procedure, the mean cumulative effective dose over the 3 years was 23.1 mSv, whereas the median dose was 15.6 mSv (range 1.5 to 543.7 mSv). There were 3,173 individuals who received >20 mSv annually over the 3-year study period and 75 individuals received >50 mSv annually.
Table 4
reports the number of cardiac imaging procedures and proportion of radiation dose, according to location. Overall, the rate of cardiac imaging procedures was highest in physician offices (28.8 per 1,000 enrollees/year) compared with hospital inpatient and hospital outpatient locations (15.9 and 15.3 per 1,000 enrollees/year, respectively; p < 0.0001). Slightly more than one-half of the overall radiation dose was delivered in the physician office setting (58.8%). These findings were consistent across enrollee age and sex categories. Physician office-based imaging continued to be largest contributor of procedures and radiation dose across the 5 service markets, with the exception of Wisconsin, where hospital outpatient locations had the highest procedure use and contribution to overall radiation dose.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4 Number of Cardiac Imaging Procedures (per 1,000 Enrollees per Year) and Proportion of Overall Radiation Dose According to Location
|
|
Figure 1
displays the contribution of cardiac imaging procedures to the cumulative effective dose of radiation, according to type of imaging procedure performed. Overall, the largest contributor to the cumulative effective dose was MPI studies, which were responsible for 74.2% of the cumulative effective dose, whereas diagnostic cardiac catheterization and PCI procedures contributed to 21.4%. Among women and men age 18 to 34 years, MPI was the largest contributor to radiation dose (81.3% and 78.4%, respectively). In contrast, among patients with an annual dose >20 mSv and >50 mSv, diagnostic cardiac catheterization and PCI procedures were the largest contributors to radiation dose (66.2% and 48.4%, respectively). Of the 75 patients with annual dose >50 mSv, 73 patients underwent 5 diagnostic cardiac catheterization or PCI procedures, with a median of 4 MPI/positron emission tomography studies performed in this subgroup. Of the 3,173 patients with annual dose >20 mSv, 1,727 patients underwent 5 diagnostic cardiac catheterization or PCI procedures with a median of 3 MPI/positron emission tomography studies performed in this subgroup.
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 1 Contribution to Cumulative Effective Radiation Dose by Type of Cardiac Imaging Procedure
CATH = cardiac catheterization; CCT = cardiac computed tomography; EP = electrophysiological procedures; ERNA = equilibrium radionuclide angiogram; MPI = myocardial perfusion imaging; MUGA = multigated acquisition scan; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
Table 5
reports the calculated population-based rates of receiving annual effective doses of radiation across different thresholds. Overall, 89.0 per 1,000 enrollees had annual effective doses of >3 to 20 mSv/year and 3.3 per 1,000 enrollees had doses of >20 mSv/year. The rate of individuals exposed to >3 to 20 mSv/year and >20 mSv/year rose dramatically with increasing age and were higher for men compared with women. Adjusting for age and sex, the population-based rate of receiving annual effective doses of >3 to 20 mSv and >20 mSv were highest in the Orlando and South Florida health care markets.
|
Discussion
|
|---|
This study provides contemporary data on the cumulative effective doses of radiation from cardiac imaging procedures in nearly 1 million nonelderly insured adults. We observed that nearly 1 out of 10 adults underwent at least 1 cardiac imaging procedure with radiation exposure during the 3-year study period. The distribution of cardiac imaging procedures was skewed, with sizable effective doses accumulating in a minority of individuals over time. For example, approximately 10% of our study population overall underwent at least 1 cardiac imaging procedure with radiation exposure.
The public health and clinical implications of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging are not easily determined. Clinicians and patients must consider tradeoffs between the benefits of cardiac imaging procedures and their potential long-term risks due to radiation, mainly those of malignancy. The National Academies' seventh Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) report, a comprehensive assessment of the health risks from exposure to ionizing radiation, estimates that a 100-mSv radiation dose would lead to 1 additional cancer per 100 individuals over a lifetime (21). Studies have also estimated cancer risk from radiation exposures associated with specific cardiac imaging procedures. A model of CT coronary angiography suggested that the lifetime attributable risks of cancer were 1 in 284 for a 40-year-old woman and 1 in 1,007 for a 40-year-old man (22).
Although the overall proportion of enrollees experiencing high cumulative effective doses was relatively small in our study population, the absolute number individuals at risk may be considerable when our findings are extended to the U.S. population. With approximately 191 million adults age 18 to 64 years in the U.S. (23), annual effective doses of >20 mSv/year from cardiac imaging procedures would occur in 636,000 Americans if cardiac testing patterns were similar to those in our UHC population.
Of course, radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures may be worth the risk for many patients. Certain procedures, such as PCI or device implantation, are performed to mitigate the risk of near-term and even life-threatening cardiac events, whereas the potential malignancy risk from radiation exposure is a long-term stochastic consideration that may occur typically decades after exposure (24). Yet our study demonstrates that there are sizable rates of radiation exposure for patients age 35 to 54 years, many of whom will likely live long enough to for such long-term complications to potentially develop. Many of these younger patients may be candidates for alternative imaging modalities that do not use ionizing radiation but provide similar clinical information for informed decision making. For example, alternatives such as stress echocardiography or in some cases exercise testing alone without imaging could serve as alternatives to MPI scans. Similarly, although cardiac blood pool studies contributed a small amount to overall radiation exposure, judicious use of echocardiography or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may lead to lower lifetime doses.
In cases in which radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures is unavoidable because of clinical need, it is possible that the risks can be reduced even further. Investigators have shown that radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures, such as cardiac CT, differs considerably across imaging centers due to variations in equipment, protocols, and experience (25,26) and that radiation exposure can be reduced further by incorporating optimal technical practices (27–31). Given that the current expert consensus is that no level of radiation exposure exists that is not potentially harmful, physicians should be guided by a principle of "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) to reduce lifetime biological risk from the radiation exposure associated with cardiac imaging procedures (32).
As frequent providers of record for many cardiac imaging services and procedures, cardiologists bear a particular responsibility for minimizing radiation risk to patients while achieving clinical goals, balancing potential benefits from reducing the burden of cardiac disease term in the near term with potential harm of malignancy in the long term. Cardiac imaging procedures account for a substantial proportion of the radiation exposure from medical testing. The mean annual effective dose for medical imaging overall in this UHC cohort was previously estimated at 2.4 mSv (5), suggesting that cardiac procedures account for 30% of the total dose received. This proportion parallels recent findings from cross-sectional data collected by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (33).
Yet despite their frequent use of these studies, cardiologists, like many other physician specialists, are not optimally trained in how to describe the risks of radiation to patients (34,35). Several reports have demonstrated that patients do not receive information about the radiation dose and risk associated with MPI studies (36) or CT scans (37,38) from providers, and equally concerning is that many physicians are often unable to quantify radiation risk (34,37). Educating cardiologists on more effective methods to inform patients regarding the risks of radiation from cardiac imaging procedures and potential alternatives can help to reduce lifetime radiation exposure (35).
The finding that variation in cumulative effective doses of radiation exists across the 5 service markets in our study is not unexpected. Differences in radiation exposure largely reflect regional differences in the rates of cardiac imaging procedures, a previously established phenomenon (39). Many potential reasons exist that account for regional differences in the use of cardiac imaging procedures with radiation exposure. Differences in patient case mix potentially explain why beneficiaries in Florida were more likely to undergo cardiac imaging procedures, although the cumulative radiation dose remained higher even after adjusting for age and sex. Regional differences may also occur if there were differences in the use of alternative imaging modalities that do not use ionizing radiation—factors such as geographic availability, clinical preferences, and level of reimbursement may be important explanatory factors. Last, our findings may reflect that cardiac imaging procedures are overused in some areas or underused in others; further research examining whether differences in the appropriateness of cardiac imaging exist across regions is needed.
The relationship between the location of cardiac imaging procedures and cumulative radiation dose is not entirely clear. South Florida and Orlando had the highest annual rates of cumulative radiation dose >3 mSv, with the majority of cardiac imaging procedures taking place in physician offices. In contrast, Dallas and Wisconsin had the 2 lowest annual rates of cumulative radiation dose >3 mSv, but the former had most cardiac imaging procedures performed in physician offices, whereas the latter had most imaging procedures performed in the hospital-outpatient setting. As such, differences in location of cardiac imaging appear less important than differences in absolute rates of procedure use across service markets. However, as more than half of the radiation from cardiac imaging studies consisted of tests based in physician offices, efforts to monitor and reduce radiation exposure at these facilities may yield greater dose reductions compared with those aimed at hospital-based facilities.
We found that cardiac imaging procedures contributed an increasingly higher proportion of radiation dose with advancing age for both men and women. This phenomenon is not unexpected because the probability of cardiovascular diseases increases with age. Yet on a population level, we also observed that many young and middle-aged patients appear to have some radiation exposure from cardiac testing. For example, 56 per 1,000 beneficiaries age 35 to 44 years old in our study population had a cumulative effective dose >3 mSv/year from cardiac imaging procedures; this translates into approximately 2.4 million individuals in the United States. Because younger patients are likely to continue to be exposed to radiation over time from both cardiac and noncardiac testing, they are particularly susceptible to higher risks of malignancy over time. Younger women are especially susceptible to the deleterious effects of radiation exposure and have higher cancer risk from a given exposure compared with older women or men (22,26). Our finding that MPI studies contributed to approximately 80% of all radiation dose for patients age 18 to 34 years suggests that alternative modalities to evaluate ischemia (such as stress echocardiography) would decrease the radiation dose substantially for these patients. Among adults with the highest doses of radiation, cardiac catheterization and PCI procedures were important contributors to overall radiation dose. Cardiologists should exercise particular caution using established techniques for minimizing exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, particularly for patients undergoing repeat procedures (40).
The urgency for implementing strategies for reducing radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures will only increase as the volume of such studies continues to grow in the U.S. For example, reimbursement for screening CT scans for coronary calcium is now mandated in 1 state (41), and the number of cardiac CT studies will almost certainly increase (42). The expansion of in-office imaging is also thought to be a significant contributor to increased use (43). Given that nearly one-half of all cardiac imaging procedures overall (and three-fourths of MPI and cardiac CT studies) were conducted in physician offices in our study population, increases in in-office imaging will likely continue to lead to increased imaging volume and radiation exposure. As a result, efforts to monitor and reduce the burden of radiation exposure will be progressively more important as the number of cardiac imaging procedures grows.
Study limitations.
First, our approach to quantifying radiation is based on estimates of effective dose rather than on a patient-specific measure. These estimates of effective dose rely on a number of assumptions such as the radiosensitivity of specific organs and tissues, specific imaging techniques and protocols, and radionuclide distribution and elimination kinetics (44). These estimates also are limited because they apply to a "reference" individual that represents an age- and sex-averaged person. However, while imperfect, effective dose is the only readily available measure that reflects the overall potential biological harm across different types of radiation exposure (10,45). Because the focus of our study was to evaluate population-level radiation exposure, the precision of patient-specific radiation doses is less of a concern compared with the overall patterns of imaging use and radiation burden.
Second, we are unable to determine the appropriate use of these cardiac imaging procedures. Administrative data are inherently limited in its ability to assess the clinical context under which a procedure was used. For example, determination of risk factors such as family history or diabetes mellitus are not available in our data, and indications for testing based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes are nonspecific, frequently referring to tests ordered to "rule out" particular conditions. We therefore could not determine whether any of these cardiac imaging procedures could have been substituted with another test or even whether they should have been used at all. However, the focus of this study was to describe the longitudinal radiation exposure currently delivered in actual clinical practice rather than the exposure that would result under optimal conditions.
Third, we are unable to consider operator or facility factors, which may affect the dose received. As noted earlier, radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures often vary significantly across institutions and equipment vendors (25). Similarly, we did not account for continuing technological advances that lower radiation exposure, such as those that have occurred in cardiac CT (46,47).
Fourth, our study is based on patterns that were observed during the period 2005 to 2007. Although these data are fairly contemporary, the development of new technologies and protocols for cardiac imaging procedures could have a substantial impact on reducing radiation exposure in the future (48–51). Extrapolation to subsequent years is challenging because advances in cardiac imaging procedures (e.g., complex arrhythmia ablations, percutaneous stent valves) will change the patterns of radiation exposure in the general population in unforeseen ways. As an example, although the impact of cardiac CT on overall radiation exposure is small currently, its future impact may be substantial.
Fifth, because the study sample is limited to those continuously enrolled, UHC enrollees who died during the study period may have incurred cardiac imaging procedures with radiation exposure that are not included in our study, underestimating the cumulative rate of exposure. Subjects who leave UHC health insurance plans during this time were also not included; the effect on the cumulative rate of exposure is unknown and depends on whether they were more or less healthy than subjects who remained insured.
Last, our study was limited to 5 major health care markets with private insurance, and the use of cardiac imaging procedures with radiation outside of those areas may differ in other areas of the U.S. Although we included nearly 1 million nonelderly adults, the extent to which our findings can be extrapolated to the elderly or the uninsured is unknown. In addition, studies and procedures performed outside the UHC insurance network that were not reimbursed, in whole or part, would not appear in our data. However, given the substantial cost associated with cardiac testing and procedures, such out-of-pocket services are unlikely to be a major contributor.
|
Conclusions
|
|---|
Cardiac imaging procedures represent an important source of ionizing radiation in the United States. The overall distribution of cumulative effective doses is skewed and can lead to sizable radiation exposure for many individuals. Better strategies to minimize the radiation exposure from cardiac imaging procedures should be encouraged.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
The authors are grateful to Matthew J. Drawz, Tri C. Tong, James C. Dahl, and Neil C. Jensen from United Healthcare for their assistance with the initial preparation of data.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Dr. Chen is supported in part by an American Heart Association Clinical Research Program Award (AHA 10CRP2640075) and an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Career Development Award (1K08HS018781-01). Dr. Einstein is supported in part by a National Institutes of Health K12 Institutional Career Development Award (5 KL2 RR024157-03); and has received research support from Spectrum Dynamics. Dr. Krumholz reports consulting fees for serving on the United Healthcare Cardiac Scientific Advisory Board and received no fees related to this project. Dr. Ross is supported by the National Institute on Aging (K08 AG032886) and the American Federation of Aging Research through the Paul B. Beeson Career Development Award Program.
|
References
|
|---|
1 Lucas FL, DeLorenzo MA, Siewers AE, Wennberg DE. Temporal trends in the utilization of diagnostic testing and treatments for cardiovascular disease in the United States, 1993–2001 Circulation 2006;113:374-379.[Abstract/Free Full Text]2 IMV. IMV 2003 Nuclear Medicine Census Market Summary Report. Des Plaines, IL: IMV Medical Information Division, 2003. 3 IMV. IMV 2006 Cardiac Catheterization Lab Census Market Summary Report. Des Plaines, IL: IMV Medical Information Division, 2006. 4 IMV. IMV 2008 Present Practices & Future Directions in Cardiac Imaging, The Cardiologist's Perspective 2008–2011. Des Plaines, IL: IMV Medical Information Division, 2008. 5 Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures N Engl J Med 2009;361:849-857.[CrossRef][Medline] 6 Bedetti G, Botto N, Andreassi MG, Traino C, Vano E, Picano E. Cumulative patient effective dose in cardiology Br J Radiol 2008;81:699-705.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 7 United States Government Accountability Office. Medicare Part B Imaging Services. Rapid Spending Growth and Shift to Physician Offices Indicate Need for CMS to Consider Additional Management Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006. 8 Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:13761-13766.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 9 The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP publication 103 Ann ICRP 2007;37:1-332.[Medline] 10 Martin CJ. Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 2007;80:639-647.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 11 Martin CJ. The application of effective dose to medical exposures Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008;128:1-4.[Free Full Text] 12 Radiation protection in medicine ICRP publication 105 Ann ICRP 2007;37:1-63.[Medline] 13 Mettler Jr. FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog Radiology 2008;248:254-263.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14 Buls N, Pages J, de Mey J, Osteaux M. Evaluation of patient and staff doses during various CT fluoroscopy guided interventions Health Phys 2003;85:165-173.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 15 Perisinakis K, Theocharopoulos N, Damilakis J, Manios E, Vardas P, Gourtsoyiannis N. Fluoroscopically guided implantation of modern cardiac resynchronization devices: radiation burden to the patient and associated risks J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:2335-2339.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 16 Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Theocharopoulos N, Manios E, Vardas P, Gourtsoyiannis N. Accurate assessment of patient effective radiation dose and associated detriment risk from radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures Circulation 2001;104:58-62.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 17 Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira, MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging Circulation 2007;116:1290-1305.[Free Full Text] 18 Henzlova M, Cerqueria, MD, Hansen CL, Taillefer R, Yao S. ASNC imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: stress protocols and tracers J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:331.[CrossRef] 19 IMV. IMV 2005 Nuclear Medicine Census Market Summary Report. Des Plaines, IL: IMV Medical Information Division, 2005. 20 Friis RH, Selles TA. Measures of morbidity and mortality used in epidemiology Epidemiology for Public Health Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 200993–139. 21 National Research Council Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006. 22 Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography JAMA 2007;298:317-323.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 23 Population Division U.S. Census Bureau. Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Five-Year Age Groups for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NC-EST2008-01) http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008-sa.html 2007Accessed July 20, 2009. 24 Amis Jr. ES, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:272-284.[CrossRef][Medline] 25 Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography JAMA 2009;301:500-507.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 26 Kim KP, Einstein AJ, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1188-1194.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 27 Balter S. Radiation safety in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: operational radiation safety Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 1999;47:347-353.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 28 Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation Eur Radiol 2002;12:1081-1086.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 29 Ficaro EP, Zanzonico P, Stabin MG, et al. ASNC Information Statement. Variability in radiation dose estimates from nuclear and computed tomography diagnostic imaging http://www.asnc.org/imageuploads/InformationStatementRadiationDosimetry2009.pdf 2002Accessed August 8, 2009. 30 Raff GL, Chinnaiyan KM, Share DA, et al. , for the Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Consortium C-I. Radiation dose from cardiac computed tomography before and after implementation of radiation dose-reduction techniques. JAMA 2009;301:2340-2348.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 31 Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography JAMA 2009;301:500-507.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 32 Prasad KN, Cole WC, Haase GM. Radiation protection in humans: extending the concept of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) from dose to biological damage Br J Radiol 2004;77:97-99.[Free Full Text] 33 Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, et al. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources: 1950–2007 Radiology 2009;253:520-531.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 34 Correia MJ, Hellies A, Andreassi MG, Ghelarducci B, Picano E. Lack of radiological awareness among physicians working in a tertiary-care cardiological centre Int J Cardiol 2005;103:307-311.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 35 Picano E, Vano E, Semelka R, Regulla D. The American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine:deep impact on the practice of cardiovascular imaging Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2007;5:37.[CrossRef][Medline] 36 Bedetti G, Pizzi C, Gavaruzzi G, Lugaresi F, Cicognani A, Picano E. Suboptimal awareness of radiologic dose among patients undergoing cardiac stress scintigraphy J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5:126-131.[CrossRef][Medline] 37 Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks Radiology 2004;231:393-398.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 38 Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Dillman J, Schipper MJ, Francis IR. Medical decision making regarding computed tomographic radiation dose and associated risk: the patient's perspective Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1069-1071.[Free Full Text] 39 Wennberg D. The Dartmouth Atlas of Cardiovascular Health CareChicago, IL: AHA Press; 1999. 40 Kuon E, Glaser C, Dahm JB. Effective techniques for reduction of radiation dosage to patients undergoing invasive cardiac procedures Br J Radiol 2003;76:406-413.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 41 Beller GA. The Texas Heart Attack Prevention Bill mandating coverage for CAD screening tests J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:681-682.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 42 Ladapo JA, Horwitz JR, Weinstein MC, Gazelle GS, Cutler DM. Adoption and spread of new imaging technology: a case study Health Aff 2009;28:w1122-w1132.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 43 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC). Report to Congress: Improving Incentives in the Medicare Program. Chapter 4: Impact of physician self-referral on use of imaging services within an episode. Washington, DC: 2009:81–100. 44 Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, et al. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging. A science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation 2009;119:1056-1065.[Free Full Text] 45 Dietze G, Harrison JD, Menzel HG. Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced Br J Radiol 2009;82:348-350author reply 350–1.[Free Full Text] 46 McCollough CH. CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce Health Phys 2008;95:508-517.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 47 Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose Radiology 2008;246:742-753.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 48 Berman DS, Kang X, Tamarappoo B, et al. Stress thallium-201/rest technetium-99m sequential dual isotope high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2009;2:273-282.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 49 Sharir T, Ben-Haim S, Merzon K, Prochorov V, Dickman D, Berman DS. High-speed myocardial perfusion imaging initial clinical comparison with conventional dual detector anger camera imaging J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2008;1:156-163.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 50 Esteves FP, Raggi P, Folks RD, et al. Novel solid-state-detector dedicated cardiac camera for fast myocardial perfusion imaging: multicenter comparison with standard dual detector cameras. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16L927–34. 51 Slomka PJ, Patton JA, Berman DS, Germano G. Advances in technical aspects of myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:255-276.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Related Articles
-
Inside This Issue
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010 56: A20.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
Radiation Exposure From Cardiac Imaging Procedures: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits?
- Matthew J. Budoff and Mohit Gupta
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010 56: 712-714.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. A. Schroeder, K. Clarke, S. Neubauer, and D. J. Tyler
Hyperpolarized Magnetic Resonance: A Novel Technique for the In Vivo Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease
Circulation,
October 4, 2011;
124(14):
1580 - 1594.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. Einstein and J. Knuuti
Cardiac imaging: does radiation matter?
Eur. Heart J.,
August 9, 2011;
(2011)
ehr281v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Ellenbogen and J. Kron
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Location Matters
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 26, 2011;
58(5):
491 - 492.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Daneshvar and S. H. Rahimtoola
CT Angiography for All Patients With Inconclusive Noninvasive Test? Clinical Perspective: "Not Yet"
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
July 1, 2011;
4(7):
752 - 753.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. E. Chambers
Radiation Dose in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: OUCH... Did That Hurt?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
March 1, 2011;
4(3):
344 - 346.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. De Mauri, M. Brambilla, D. Chiarinotti, R. Matheoud, A. Carriero, and M. De Leo
Estimated Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging in Hemodialysis Patients
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.,
March 1, 2011;
22(3):
571 - 578.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Alfakih and M. Budoff
Multi-detector computed tomography coronary angiography: the incidental lung findings
J R Soc Med,
February 1, 2011;
104(2):
50 - 51.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Budoff and M. Gupta
Radiation Exposure From Cardiac Imaging Procedures: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
August 24, 2010;
56(9):
712 - 714.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Interview
Top
Abstract
Methods