The biological effects of diagnostic cardiac imaging on chronically exposed physicians: The importance of being non-ionizing

被引：30

作者：

Andreassi M.G. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Lab. of Cell. Biology and Genetics, CNR Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa

来源：

关键词：

Chromosome Aberration; Sister Chromatid Exchange; Interventional Cardiologist; Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivor; Occupational Dose;

D O I：

10.1186/1476-7120-2-25

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Ultrasounds and ionizing radiation are extensively used for diagnostic applications in the cardiology clinical practice. This paper reviewed the available information on occupational risk of the cardiologists who perform, every day, cardiac imaging procedures. At the moment, there are no consistent evidence that exposure to medical ultrasound is capable of inducing genetic effects, and representing a serious health hazard for clinical staff. In contrast, exposure to ionizing radiation may result in adverse health effect on clinical cardiologists. Although the current risk estimates are clouded by approximations and extrapolations, most data from cytogenetic studies have reported a detrimental effect on somatic DNA of professionally exposed personnel to chronic low doses of ionizing radiation. Since interventional cardiologists and electro-physiologists have the highest radiation exposure among health professionals, a major awareness is crucial for improving occupational protection. Furthermore, the use of a biological dosimeter could be a reliable tool for the risk quantification on an individual basis. © 2004 Andreassi; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 72 条

[1]

Higgins C.B., Cardiac imaging, Radiology, 217, pp. 4-10, (2000)

[2]

Radiation and Your Patient: A Guide for Medical Practitioners. A Web Module Produced by Committee 3 of the ICRP, (2001)

[3]

Radiation Protection 118: Referral Guidelines for Imaging

[4]

Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, Official Journal of the European Communities, L180, pp. 0022-0027

[5]

Picano E., Sustainability of medical imaging. Education and Debate, BMJ, 328, pp. 578-580, (2004)

[6]

Shiralkar S., Rennie A., Snow M., Galland R.B., Lewis M.H., Gower-Thomas K., Doctors' knowledge of radiation exposure: Questionnaire study, BMJ, 327, pp. 371-372, (2003)

[7]

Finestone A., Schlesinger T., Amir H., Richter E., Milgrom C., Do physicians correctly estimate radiation risks from medical imaging?, Arch Environ Health, 58, pp. 59-61, (2003)

[8]

Lee C.I., Haims A.H., Monico E.P., Brink J.A., Forman H.P., Diagnostic CT scans: Assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks, Radiology, 231, pp. 393-398, (2004)

[9]

Correia M.J., Hellies A., Andreassi M.G., Ghelarducci B., Picano E., Lack of Radiological Awareness in a Tertiary Care Cardiological Centre, Int J Cardiol, (2005)

[10]

Nyborg W.L., Biological effects of ultrasound: Development of safety guidelines. Part II: General review, Ultrasound Med Biol, 27, pp. 301-333, (2001)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 →