Radiation Exposure in Mobile Catheterization Laboratory from 2008 is Over Two Times Higher Compared to Fixed Catheterization Laboratory from 2016

Carmelo J. Panetta, Erin M. Galbraith, Marat Yanavitski, Patrick T. Koller, Samir B. Pancholy, Ganesh Raveendran, Sunil V. Rao.

Abstract

Background: Mobile catheterization laboratories offer a relatively rapid equipment option for hospitals with the potential benefit to maintain patient access of needed percutaneous procedures. One concern is the Xray equipment may not be contemporary, resulting in higher radiation exposure to staff and patients. The aim of the study was to compare radiation exposure with procedures performed in a mobile versus a fixed catheterization laboratory.

Methods: Absorbed dose measured in milligray (mGy) was measured from the Xray equipment in the mobile lab (manufactured in 2008) and the fixed laboratory (manufactured in 2016). The effective dose measured in millisievert (mSv) was measured after each case from dosimeters worn by the operators. A total of 61 cases were reviewed, 30 in the mobile and 31 in the fixed laboratory. Data were collected from each case, including mGy, mSv, number of frames, fluoroscopy time, type of procedure, vascular access location, horizontal radiation absorbing pads (HRAP), body mass index (BMI) and contrast volume.

Results: There were no significant differences in BMI, access site, number of HRAP, contrast volume, frames per case and fluoroscopy time. The mobile lab measured mGy greater than 2.7 times higher (p<0.005) and the mSv was great than 2 times higher (p<0.05) versus the fixed catheterization laboratory.

Conclusions: While mobile catheterization laboratories provide maintenance of percutaneous procedures for hospitals, they may have older Xray equipment, which can result in over two times the radiation exposure to both patients and staff.