Why the study?
Pediatric cardiac interventions raise radiation exposure concerns, making radiation dose management and image quality assessment imperative for safe and effective procedures.
Objective evaluations using physical image quality metrics can improve the characterization of fluoroscopic X-ray systems to safeguard pediatric patients during cardiac interventions.
May improve radiation safety in pediatric cardiac fluoroscopy; extends systematic characterization of key image quality factors.
Pediatric interventional cardiology procedures are essential in diagnosing and treating congenital heart disease in children; however, they raise concerns about potential radiation exposure. Managing radiation doses and assessing image quality in angiographs becomes imperative for safe and effective interventions. This systematic review aims to comprehensively analyze the current understanding of physical image quality metrics relevant for characterizing X-ray systems used in fluoroscopy-guided pediatric cardiac interventional procedures, considering the main factors reported in the literature that influence this outcome. A search in Scopus and Web of Science, using relevant keywords and inclusion/exclusion criteria, yielded fourteen relevant articles published between 2000 and 2022. The physical image quality metrics reported were noise, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast, contrast-to-noise ratio, and high contrast spatial resolution. Various factors influencing image quality were investigated, such as polymethyl methacrylate thickness (often used to simulate water equivalent tissue thickness), operation mode, anti-scatter grid presence and tube voltage. Objective evaluations using these metrics ensure impartial assessments for main factors affecting image quality, improving in the characterization fluoroscopic X-ray systems, and aiding informed decisions to safeguard pediatric patients during procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nocetti et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: