SP9.1.3 Abdominal X-Rays in the Emergency Setting- A Review of Current Practice

Aim Abdominal radiographs (AXRs) are commonly used in the setting of acute abdominal pain. However, with low diagnostic yield, they can increase workload within the radiology department, increase patient radiation exposure and ultimately delay further diagnostic imaging. The average cost of an abdominal film, excluding staffing costs, is £45. This study aimed to investigate the appropriate use of AXRs in the emergency setting, as per the Royal College of Radiologists Guidelines (RCR). Methods A single centre retrospective review was conducted of all patients referred to the emergency surgical team over a 21 day period. Data was retrieved from electronic handover records. Demographics, radiology request forms and imaging results were obtained from up to date electronic care records. Results A total of 160 patients presented within the audit window, with a median age 49 (16-94) and 61.3% male. Overall, 36.9% of patients underwent an abdominal x-ray, 66.1% of which were not indicated in accordance with RCR guidelines. 71.2% of patients who underwent an abdominal x-ray required further diagnostic imaging by means of CT or USS. Only 10.2% of AXRs provided diagnostic information. Total cost expenditure for inappropriate AXRs = £1,755, excluding staffing costs. Conclusions Approximately two thirds of AXRs performed did not comply with the published RCR guidelines. Adherence to RCR guidelines can reduce needless radiation exposure, hospital costs and delay to diagnosis. We plan to conduct a teaching session on the RCR guidelines alongside the development of information posters, and re-audit our results.

3D mapping versus cardiac computed tomography guided cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is an essential tool for an efficient ablation for atrial fibrillation. 3D mapping guided ablation could also deliver sufficient results in the setting of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) with additional advantages regarding total patient radiation exposure, fluoroscopy and procedural time. Purpose To compare the 3D mapping with the Achieve® catheter versus the CCT on the procedural characteristics and acute outcome during CBA. Methods Consecutive patients who underwent CBA with the second-generation cryoballoon (CB) were retrospectively enrolled from a single centre registry. Baseline and procedural characteristics of patients with pre-procedural CCT (CT-Group) were compared to those with peri-procedural 3D mapping (Ensite PrecisionTM ) with the 1st generation Achieve® catheter (3D-Group). Results A total of 696 patients were enrolled, 327 (47%) in the CT-Group and 369 (53%) in the 3D-Group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Similar pulmonary vein (PV) anatomical variations were identified in both groups and all PVs were acutely isolated. The mean CB temperature (T) at 60s, the nadir T, the time to PV isolation, the T of isolation and the mean thaw time did not differ significantly. However, the total procedural and fluoroscopy time were significantly shorter as well as the dose area product was significantly less in the 3D-Group. Conclusion 3D mapping guided CBA using the Achieve® catheter is associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy and procedural time and less patient radiation exposure. The anatomical acquisition of the PVs and the acute ablation outcome is non inferior to the CCT guided CBA. Procedural characteristics CT-Group n = 327 3D- Groupn = 369 p-value Paroxysmal AF 214 244 0.87 Total procedure time (min) 73.3 ± 23.1 65.1 ± 18.9 < 0.01 Fluoroscopy time (min) 14.9 ± 7.7 12.6 ± 7 0.02 DAP (Gy·cm2) 5924 ± 4991 4890 ± 3790 0.04 LCPV 37 41 1.00 RMPV 20 21 0.87 Mean T at 60s(oC) -41.9 ± 8.5 -40.6 ± 10.7 0.10 Mean nadir T(oC) -49.5 ± 6.4 -48.4 ± 7.8 0.18 Mean PVI time(s) 42.4 ± 26.3 38.1 ± 24.3 0.11 Mean PVI temperature(oC) -33.4 ± 11.6 -31.1 ± 22 0.16 Mean thaws time(s) 51.5 ± 20.5 51.8 ± 20.3 0.85

Comparison of operator and patient radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) and balloon kyphoplasty (BK) are two minimally invasive techniques used to treat mechanical pain secondary to spinal compression fractures. A concern for both procedures is the radiation exposure incurred by both operators and patients. The authors conducted a systematic review of the available literature to examine differences in interventionalist radiation exposure between PV and BK and differences in patient radiation exposure between PV and BK. METHODS The authors conducted a search of the PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, and Web of Science databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Full-text articles in English describing one of the primary endpoints in ≥ 5 unique patients treated with PV or BK of the mobile spine were included. Estimates of mean operative time, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy duration were reported as weighted averages. Additionally, annual occupational dose limits provided by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) were used to determine the number needed to harm (NNH). RESULTS The meta-analysis included 27 articles. For PV, the mean fluoroscopy times were 4.9 ± 3.3 minutes per level without protective measures and 5.2 ± 3.4 minutes with protective measures. The mean operator radiation exposures per level in mrem were 4.6 ± 5.4 at the eye, 7.8 ± 8.7 at the neck, 22.7 ± 62.4 at the torso, and 49.2 ± 62.2 at the hand without protective equipment and 0.3 ± 0.1 at the torso and 95.5 ± 162.5 at the hand with protection. The mean fluoroscopy times per level for BK were 6.1 ± 2.5 minutes without protective measures and 6.0 ± 3.2 minutes with such measures. The mean exposures were 31.3 ± 39.3, 19.7 ± 4.6, 31.8 ± 34.2, and 174.4 ± 117.3 mrem at the eye, neck, torso, and hand, respectively, without protection, and 1, 9.2 ± 26.2, and 187.7 ± 100.4 mrem at the neck, torso, and hand, respectively, with protective equipment. For protected procedures, radiation to the hand was the limiting factor and the NNH estimates were 524 ± 891 and 266 ± 142 for PV and BK, respectively. Patient exposure as measured by flank-mounted dosimeters, entrance skin dose, and dose area product demonstrated lower exposure with PV than BK (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Operator radiation exposure is significantly decreased by the use of protective equipment. Radiation exposure to both the operator and patient is lower for PV than BK. NNH estimates suggest that radiation to the hand limits the number of procedures an operator can safely perform. In particular, radiation to the hand limits PV to 524 and BK to 266 procedures per year before surpassing the threshold set by the USNRC.

Diagnostic accuracy among trainees to safely confirm peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement using bedside ultrasound

Background Real-time utilization of ultrasound to confirm peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement improves efficacy and reduces patient radiation exposure. We evaluated if novice ultrasound users could accurately confirm appropriate PICC tip location via ultrasound assessment. Methodology A prospective data collection study was conducted in an academic center with an established PICC team. Novice ultrasonography users performed 2 echocardiographic views (subcostal and apical 4 chamber) and noted position of visible wire. The presence of central bubbles (visualized in the heart) after a saline infusion, as well as time to bubbles (push-to-bubbles) seen in all patients, was also recorded. Image quality and confidence in imaging acquisition was also recorded. Results Twenty-eight patients between ages 0 and 18 were enrolled over the study period with mean patient age of 10 years and median weight of 34 kg. The quality of image acquisition was rated as great only 34–44%. The wire was visualized only 25% of the time. The median push-to-bubble time when the PICC was later confirmed to be in appropriate positioning was 1.5 seconds with a delay of greater than 3 seconds 40% of the time when the line was malpositioned. The overall positive predictive value of ultrasound identifying malpositioned lines in this study was 43%. Conclusions With this PICC placement technique, ultrasound confirmation of PICC placement by novice ultrasound users was not superior to confirmation with chest radiograph. There may remain potential for future ultrasound protocols, with pediatric-specific technology or echogenic catheter tips, to reduce radiation exposure from chest radiograph during PICC line positioning verification.