Quality Initiatives Radiation Risk: What You Should Know to Tell Your Patient

Abstract

The steady increase in the number of radiologic procedures being performed is undeniably having a beneficial impact on healthcare. However, it is also becoming common practice to quantify the health detriment from radiation exposure by calculating the number of cancer-related deaths inferred from the effective dose delivered to a given patient population. The inference of a certain number of expected deaths from the effective dose is to be discouraged, but it remains important as a means of raising professional awareness of the danger associated with ionizing radiation. The risk associated with a radiologic examination appears to be rather low compared with the natural risk. However, any added risk, no matter how small, is unacceptable if it does not benefit the patient. The concept of diagnostic reference levels should be used to reduce variations in practice among institutions and to promote optimal dose indicator ranges for specific imaging protocols. In general, the basic principles of radiation protection (eg, justification and optimization of a procedure) need to be respected to help counteract the unjustified explosion in the number of procedures being performed.

Prognostic value of right ventricular ejection fraction in pulmonary arterial hypertension

“…As a comparison, the environmental yearly irradiation dose is 2.4 mSv in France, and the radiation dose from a chest computed tomography can be up to 24 mSv. The cumulative estimated dose for five measurements is considered moderate; however with an increased risk of fatal cancer estimated at approximately 0.5% [26]. This risk should be considered, especially in younger patients.…”

CT exposure in adult and paediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequent possible risks

“…0.04 9 0.25 plus an additional 1 %). Due to the greater sensitivity of young subjects to radiation damage, the risk factor is 3-4 times more than in adults [27,28].…”

Ką Turėtume Žinoti Apie Medicininę Apšvitą?

“…Tiesioginių duomenų, nurodančių patikimą ryšį tarp mažesnių nei 10 mSv dozių ir vėžio rizikos, nėra, ir viena to priežasčių -nėra atlikta pakankamai didelį statistinį jautrumą turinčių epidemiologinių studijų [22][23][24]. Kol kas neturima pakankamai duomenų, kurie leistų patvirtinti arba paneigti, kad mažesnės nei 10 mSv JS dozės didina vėžio riziką, todėl naudojami didelių ir vidutinių dozių sukeliamų reiškinių duomenys, kurie, taikant tiesinės beslenkstės priklausomybės modelį, perskaičiuojami ir pritaikomi mažoms dozėms [16,22,23,[25][26][27].…”

“…Vaikai ir jauni žmonės, literatūros duomenimis, 2-3 kartus jautresni JS poveikiui [24,30,31,32]. Be to, jų ląs-telės blogiau diferencijuotos, greičiau dalijasi, o numatoma gyvenimo trukmė ilgesnė, taigi ir ilgesnis laikas navikams 6 pav.…”