0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
RESEARCH LETTER |

Radiation Safety in Nuclear Cardiology—Current Knowledge and Practice: Results From the 2011 American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Member Survey FREE

Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD; Peter Tilkemeier, MD; Reza Fazel, MD, MSc; Harivony Rakotoarivelo, BA; Leslee J. Shaw, PhD ; for the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology (Dr Einstein and Ms Rakotoarivelo), and Department of Radiology (Dr Einstein), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island (Dr Tilkemeier); and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (Drs Fazel and Shaw).


JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(11):1021-1023. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.483.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Nuclear stress testing is well recognized as an effective technique for diagnosing coronary disease, predicting patient outcomes, and guiding management. Numerous evidence-based appropriate indications and practice guideline recommendations have been published regarding accepted uses of nuclear stress tests (NSTs) across a wide spectrum of patients with known or suspected coronary disease. However, the approximate 10 million NSTs performed annually account for greater than 10% of the entire ionizing radiation burden to the US population.1 One recent study, while pointing out that cancer risk from a single NST is small, projected on a population level that NSTs may result in thousands of radiation-attributable cancers annually,2 partially offsetting their benefits.

As in all areas of medical radiological protection, fundamental principles of justification (ensuring imaging is clinically necessary) and optimization (ensuring best-available technique) are central to ensuring patient protection. Appropriate use criteria (AUC)3 are essential tools for ensuring justification, and numerous dose-reduction methods have been studied and implemented in clinical practice for optimization,4,5 including protocol-,6 software-, and hardware-based approaches.7 For example, most NSTs are performed with initial imaging obtained with the patient at rest, followed by additional images obtained after injection of a radiopharmaceutical near peak exercise or pharmacologic stress (“rest-stress” protocol). Radiation exposure can be decreased by 75% using a protocol whereby stress imaging is performed first (“stress first”), with rest imaging eliminated in patients with normal stress images (“stress only”). Dual-isotope protocols involving both thallium 201 for rest imaging and a technetium (Tc)-99m–based radiopharmaceutical for stress imaging are associated with considerably higher radiation doses. Newer image reconstruction algorithms available for all scanners improve on traditional “filtered back-projection” and enable reducing the amount of radiopharmaceutical administered while preserving image quality. However, few data describe current clinical practices impacting patients' radiation exposure. To address this, we conducted a survey of NST protocols, radiation safety practices, and practitioners' knowledge.

We conducted a stratified random sample survey of American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) members in 2011, including several questions addressing radiation. The survey (eAppendix) was developed by an expert panel and implemented using SurveyMonkey software. A 10% random sampling method, stratified geographically, was used to ensure that respondents would be geographically representative of ASNC membership. Sampling was based on proportional representation by state, and where groups of physicians reported the same zip code, city, or institution or practice, they were coded as a block, of which only 1 was available for sampling. Of approximately 4700 ASNC members, 374 were selected to receive the survey. Nonrespondents received up to 3 follow-up requests, conducted by staff trained in performing scripted interviews. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher exact test. Protocol volumes were estimated multiplying total laboratory volume by percentage of studies performed using a given protocol. Low-, medium-, and high-volume sites were defined based on tertile of annual procedure volumes.

A total of 73 survey responses (19.5%) were received (46 physicians, 23 technologists, and 4 other), reflecting practices of 202 physicians and 177 technologists. The median annual number of NSTs performed for the 59 respondents reporting nonzero volume was 1200 (intertertile range, 900-2000).

Protocols

Forty-five respondents reported both laboratory volume and percentage of studies performed using each imaging protocol. Among these respondents, rest-stress Tc-99m was most popular, used in 58% of studies and 40 laboratories (89%), followed by dual-isotope imaging, used in 15.6% of studies and 10 laboratories (22%) (Table). Low-dose stress-first imaging constituted only 7.3% of studies, all reported by 6 respondents (13%), with 4 from high-volume laboratories.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Summary of Distribution of Protocols
Dose Reduction Approaches

Thirty-seven respondents (51%) reported using 1 or more approach to reduce radiation exposure. No single approach was reported to be used in more than 30% of studies (eTable 1). The most commonly reported approach was reducing injected radiopharmaceutical while increasing imaging time, claimed by 24 respondents (33%), followed by the use of stress-only imaging (23%), newer camera systems (20.5%), and changing radiopharmaceuticals (19.2%). In terms of specific methods, no single method was reported to be used in more than 13% of studies in the previous week or in more than 15% of laboratories (eTable 2).

AUC

Twenty-four of 48 respondents answering reported that their practice uses AUC to track appropriate use. There were no differences among type of practices (P = .76) or practice NST volume tertiles (P = .66).

Professional Knowledge

Of 46 respondents, 40 (87%) reported having read at least 1 ASNC statement on radiation safety. Of the 73 individuals completing the survey, 36 responded to the question asking how many posteroanterior chest x-ray examinations would be equivalent to a single-day, rest-stress Tc-99m nuclear stress test. We considered a range of 350 to 650 x-ray examinations (ie, 7-13 mSv, assuming the standard estimate of 0.02-mSv effective dose for a posteroanterior chest x-ray examination8,9) to be a reasonable correct answer. Of these 36 respondents, 25 underestimated the dose. Twenty-two physicians omitted answering this question; among the 24 physicians responding, answers ranged from 1 to 1050 x-ray examinations. Seventeen physicians (71%) underestimated the dose (including 14 replying ≤166 x-ray examinations), 3 overestimated, and only 4 answered correctly (17% of respondents—9% of all physicians surveyed).

Over the past decade, important advances in nuclear cardiology have allowed for high-quality studies at substantially reduced radiation exposure. This survey provides initial data describing current US NST practices, identifying that dose-reduction approaches have largely not been assimilated into everyday practice. Multiple reports evaluating more than 20 000 patients have demonstrated safety of stress-only imaging compared with traditional rest-stress imaging.6 Given that most NSTs find no abnormalities, the 7.2% rate of stress-only imaging represents a missed opportunity to skip unneeded rest imaging in many patients. The 15.6% rate of dual-isotope testing is unacceptably high. Very few sites used scanner hardware such as cameras using multiple solid-state detectors or improved image reconstruction software to reduce radiation doses. Although 93% of physicians reported having read statements pertaining to radiation safety, only 9% could correctly characterize the radiation burden to patients from the most common NST protocol, a figure sizably lower than the proportion of imaging physicians correctly describing radiation in other contexts.10

Our study has several limitations. Most significant is its modest sample size. While the response rate was similar to other recent practice-based surveys,11 it is uncertain what differences exist between respondents and nonrespondents. Not all respondents answered every question, although it is reasonable to expect those omitting a question are more likely to have suboptimal practices than those answering, suggesting that our data may reflect a bias toward underestimating actual underutilization of radiation protection approaches. Another limitation is that our findings are not based on data collected of actual protocols used and activities (millicuries) administered, but rather respondents' estimates and recall. These may be subject to bias, as illustrated by the observed discordance between actual vs professed use of stress-only imaging.

Nevertheless, our findings suggest significant opportunities for improving radiation safety for the 10 million US patients undergoing NSTs annually. Specific goals should include the following: (1) bridging gaps between physicians' exposure to radiation safety literature and actual knowledge; (2) increasing use of low-dose stress-first imaging, while decreasing dual-isotope imaging; (3) promoting wider integration of AUC into clinical practice, and (4) fostering validation, use, and affordability of advanced technologies permitting reduced administered activity.

Thus, contemporary US nuclear cardiology practice is characterized by underuse of existing approaches to ensure justification and optimization of ionizing radiation use and by gaps in practitioners' knowledge pertaining to radiation safety. Targeted educational programs are needed to better disseminate patient-centered radiation safety practices and effectively incorporate these principles into clinical practice.

Correspondence: Dr Einstein, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 W 168th St, PH 10-203, New York, NY 10032 (andrew.einstein@columbia.edu).

Published Online: May 6, 2013. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.483

Group Information: Information about the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology can be found at http://www.asnc.org.

Author Contributions: Drs Einstein and Shaw had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Einstein, Tilkemeier, and Shaw. Acquisition of data: Einstein. Analysis and interpretation of data: Einstein, Tilkemeier, Fazel, Rakotoarivelo, and Shaw. Drafting of the manuscript: Einstein, Tilkemeier, and Shaw. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Einstein, Tilkemeier, Fazel, Rakotoarivelo, and Shaw. Statistical analysis: Einstein, Rakotoarivelo, and Shaw. Administrative, technical, and material support: Shaw. Study supervision: Einstein, Tilkemeier, and Shaw.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Einstein has received research grants from GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, and Spectrum Dynamics; has received a speakers fee from Spectrum Dynamics; and has served as a consultant to the International Atomic Energy Agency and Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Dr Shaw discloses being past-president of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, for which Emory University received partial salary support for her.

Funding/Support: Dr Einstein was supported in part by a Victoria and Esther Aboodi Assistant Professorship and a Herbert Irving Assistant Professorship.

Role of the Sponsors: The sponsors were not involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Previous Presentation: The study was presented in part at the 13th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association; May 14-15, 2012; Glasgow, Scotland.

Additional Contributions: The authors gratefully acknowledge John Mahmarian, MD, for insightful and detailed comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, as well as for his leadership and advice during the publication process, and Patty Reames, RTR, CNMT, NCT, FASNC, for contributing her important perspective as a nuclear medicine technologist and practice manager to the development and conduct of the survey.

Einstein AJ. Effects of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging: how good are the data?  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(6):553-565
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim KP, Smith-Bindman R, McAreavey D. Myocardial perfusion scans: projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States.  Circulation. 2010;122(23):2403-2410
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; American College of Radiology; American Heart Association; American Society of Echocardiology; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; Society of Nuclear Medicine.  ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(23):2201-2229
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging.  Circulation. 2007;116(11):1290-1305
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP,  et al.  Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging.  J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(4):709-718
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(3):221-230
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Patton JA, Slomka PJ, Germano G, Berman DS. Recent technologic advances in nuclear cardiology.  J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14(4):501-513
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Food and Drug Administration.  White paper: initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199994.htm. Accessed December 22, 2012
Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog.  Radiology. 2008;248(1):254-263
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Groves AM, Yates SJ, Win T,  et al.  CT pulmonary angiography versus ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in pregnancy: implications from a UK survey of doctors' knowledge of radiation exposure.  Radiology. 2006;240(3):765-770
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jessup M, Albert NM, Lanfear DE,  et al.  ACCF/AHA/HFSA 2011 survey results: current staffing profile of heart failure programs, including programs that perform heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support device implantation: a report of the ACCF Heart Failure and Transplant Committee, AHA Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee, and Heart Failure Society of America.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(20):2115-2124
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Summary of Distribution of Protocols

References

Einstein AJ. Effects of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging: how good are the data?  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(6):553-565
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim KP, Smith-Bindman R, McAreavey D. Myocardial perfusion scans: projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States.  Circulation. 2010;122(23):2403-2410
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; American College of Radiology; American Heart Association; American Society of Echocardiology; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; Society of Nuclear Medicine.  ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(23):2201-2229
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging.  Circulation. 2007;116(11):1290-1305
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP,  et al.  Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging.  J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(4):709-718
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(3):221-230
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Patton JA, Slomka PJ, Germano G, Berman DS. Recent technologic advances in nuclear cardiology.  J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14(4):501-513
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Food and Drug Administration.  White paper: initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199994.htm. Accessed December 22, 2012
Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog.  Radiology. 2008;248(1):254-263
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Groves AM, Yates SJ, Win T,  et al.  CT pulmonary angiography versus ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in pregnancy: implications from a UK survey of doctors' knowledge of radiation exposure.  Radiology. 2006;240(3):765-770
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jessup M, Albert NM, Lanfear DE,  et al.  ACCF/AHA/HFSA 2011 survey results: current staffing profile of heart failure programs, including programs that perform heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support device implantation: a report of the ACCF Heart Failure and Transplant Committee, AHA Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee, and Heart Failure Society of America.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(20):2115-2124
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Supplemental Content

Einstein AJ, Tilkemeier P, Fazel R, Rakotoarivelo H, Shaw LJ; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Radiation safety in nuclear cardiology—current knowledge and practice: results from the 2011 American Society of Nuclear Cardiology member survey. JAMA Internal Medicine.. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.483

eAppendix. Survey Questions Focusing on Radiation Safety

eTable 1. Summary of the Distribution of Dose Reduction Approaches by User Types, Facility Types and Laboratory Volumes

eTable 2. Reported Utilization of Specific Methods as Part of SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Studies in Week Prior to Survey

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 4

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles