The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) first introduced the term ‘diagnostic reference level’ (DRL) in 1996 in Publication 73. The concept was subsequently developed further, and practical guidance was provided in 2001. The DRL has been proven to be an effective tool that aids in optimisation of protection in the medical exposure of patients for diagnostic and interventional procedures. However, with time, it has become evident that additional advice is needed. There are issues related to definitions of the terms used in previous guidance, determination of the values for DRLs, the appropriate interval for re-evaluating and updating these values, appropriate use of DRLs in clinical practice, methods for practical application of DRLs, and application of the DRL concept to newer imaging technologies. This publication is intended as a further source of information and guidance on these issues. Some terminology has been clarified. In addition, this publication recommends quantities for use as DRLs for various imaging modalities, and provides information on the use of DRLs for interventional procedures and in paediatric imaging. It suggests modifications in the conduct of DRL surveys that take advantage of automated reporting of radiation-dose-related quantities, and highlights the importance of including information on DRLs in training programmes for healthcare workers. The target audience for this publication is national, regional, and local authorities; professional societies; and facilities that use ionising radiation for medical purposes, and responsible staff within these facilities. A full set of the Commission’s recommendations is provided.

The benefits of cardiac imaging are immense, and modern medicine requires the extensive and versatile use of a variety of cardiac imaging techniques. Cardiologists are responsible for a large part of the radiation exposures every person gets per year from all medical sources. Therefore, they have a particular responsibility to avoid unjustified and non-optimized use of radiation, but sometimes are imperfectly aware of the radiological dose of the examination they prescribe or practice. This position paper aims to summarize the current knowledge on radiation effective doses (and risks) related to cardiac imaging procedures. We have reviewed the literature on radiation doses, which can range from the equivalent of 1-60 milliSievert (mSv) around a reference dose average of 15 mSv (corresponding to 750 chest X-rays) for a percutaneous coronary intervention, a cardiac radiofrequency ablation, a multidetector coronary angiography, or a myocardial perfusion imaging scintigraphy. We provide a European perspective on the best way to play an active role in implementing into clinical practice the key principle of radiation protection that: 'each patient should get the right imaging exam, at the right time, with the right radiation dose'.

These findings demonstrate a dose dependent increased risk of posterior lens opacities for interventional cardiologists and nurses when radiation protection tools are not used. While study of a larger cohort is needed to confirm these findings, the results suggest ocular radio-protection should be utilized.

The lens of the eye is one of the most radiosensitive tissues in the body, and exposure of the lens to ionizing radiation can cause cataract. Cumulative X-ray doses to the lenses of interventional cardiologists and associated staff can be high. The International Commission on Radiological Protection recently noted considerable uncertainty concerning radiation risk to the lens. This study evaluated risk of radiation cataract after occupational exposure in interventional cardiology personnel. Comprehensive dilated slit-lamp examinations were performed in interventional cardiologists, associated workers and controls. Radiation exposures were estimated using experimental data from catheterization laboratories and answers to detailed questionnaires. A total of 116 exposed and 93 similarly aged nonexposed individuals were examined. The relative risk of posterior subcapsular opacities in interventional cardiologists compared to unexposed controls was 3.2 (38% compared to 12%; P < 0.005). A total of 21% of nurses and technicians had radiation-associated posterior lens changes typically associated with ionizing radiation exposure. Cumulative median values of lens doses were estimated at 6.0 Sv for cardiologists and 1.5 Sv for associated medical personnel. A significantly elevated incidence of radiation-associated lens changes in interventional cardiology workers indicates there is an urgent need to educate these professionals in radiation protection to reduce the likelihood of cataract.

An increasing number of medical specialists are using fluoroscopy outside imaging departments, but there has been general neglect of radiological protection coverage of fluoroscopy machines used outside imaging departments. Lack of radiological protection training of those working with fluoroscopy outside imaging departments can increase the radiation risk to workers and patients. Procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair, renal angioplasty, iliac angioplasty, ureteric stent placement, therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography,and bile duct stenting and drainage have the potential to impart skin doses exceeding Gy. Although tissue reactions among patients and workers from fluoroscopy procedures have, to date, only been reported in interventional radiology and cardiology,the level of fluoroscopy use outside imaging departments creates potential for such injuries.A brief account of the health effects of ionising radiation and protection principles is presented in Section 2. Section 3 deals with general aspects of the protection of workers and patients that are common to all, whereas specific aspects are covered in Section 4 for vascular surgery, urology, orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology,gastroenterology and hepatobiliary system, and anaesthetics and pain management.Although sentinel lymph node biopsy involves the use of radio-isotopic methods rather than fluoroscopy, performance of this procedure in operating theatres is covered in this report as it is unlikely that this topic will be addressed in another ICRP publication in coming years. Information on radiation dose levels to patients and workers, and dose management is presented for each speciality.