Skip Navigation



Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access published online on April 2, 2008
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, doi:10.1093/rpd/ncn021
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
129/1-3/77    most recent
ncn021v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bogaert, E.
Right arrow Articles by Thierens, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bogaert, E.
Right arrow Articles by Thierens, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOVASCULAR PROCEDURES IN BELGIUM: EFFECTIVE DOSE AND CONVERSION FACTORS

E. Bogaert*, K. Bacher and H. Thierens

Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, University of Ghent, Proeftuinstraat 86, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

* Corresponding author: evelien.bogaert{at}ugent.be

Effective dose (E), representing the risk of late radiation-induced effects, can be estimated by the use of conversion factors (CF), converting direct measurable quantities such as dose-area-product into E. Eight Belgian hospitals participated in the study with a total number of 318 procedures. E-values, calculated with PCXMC, were compared for the different hospitals for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures separately. E-values varied significantly depending on the hospital where the procedure was performed (P < 0.001), on filtration insertion (P < 0.001), on whether a centre is a training centre or not, the dose conscious action of the cardiologists and the complexity of the procedure (P < 0.001). Hospital-specific CF were calculated. An average CF of 0.185 mSv Gycm–2 was obtained with a satisfactory correlation (r = 0.966, P < 0.001). The differences in CF between hospitals were due to, a large extent, the availability of additional filtration in cinegraphy mode (P < 0.001) and not to the differences in irradiation geometries in the clinical protocol of the interventional procedures.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.