Data Stacking Up On Danger of CT Radiation

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

docB

Chronically painful
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
756
So there’s more info coming out on the dangers of CT radiation. As clinicians we have to weigh this against the danger of missed pathology.

http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(07)01875-6/fulltext


Radiation Doses Among Blunt Trauma Patients: Assessing Risks and Benefits of Computed Tomographic Imaging
William R. Mower
Annals of Emergency Medicine - August 2008 (Vol. 52, Issue 2, Pages 99-100, DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.01.337)


Whole-Body Imaging in Blunt Multisystem Trauma Patients Who Were Never Examined
Graham E. Snyder
Annals of Emergency Medicine - August 2008 (Vol. 52, Issue 2, Pages 101-103, DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.023)

(Sorry. The last two articles don’t even have abstracts available on line.)
 
Radiation Doses Among Blunt Trauma Patients: Assessing Risks and Benefits of Computed Tomographic Imaging
William R. Mower
Annals of Emergency Medicine - August 2008 (Vol. 52, Issue 2, Pages 99-100, DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.01.337)

Here's one:

Mower article link

Study objective: Many emergency departments and trauma centers utilize extensive radiologic studies during the assessment of trauma patients. A point of concern arises about the possible biological effects of these cumulative radiation doses. The objective of this study is to determine the amount of ionizing radiation received by adult blunt trauma patients at a Level I trauma center during the first 24 hours of their care.

Methods: This nonconcurrent case series reviewed the first 100 consecutive adult blunt trauma patients who presented to a Level I trauma center in 2006. All patients met hospital standards for the less acute major triage criteria. Individual radiation dose reports calculated by the computed tomography (CT) scanner were used to determine the radiation doses from each CT procedure. Standardized tables were used to determine radiation dose for plain radiographs. The median effective dose of radiation (millisieverts) was calculated for the first 24 hours of hospitalization.

Results: A total of 100 eligible patients presented between January 1, 2006, and March 20, 2006. Eighty-six patients had complete radiologic records available. The median age was 32 years, with an intraquartile range of 23 to 46 years; the median Injury Severity Score was 14, with an intraquartile range of 9 to 29; and the median number of CT scans was 3, with an intraquartile range of 3 to 4. The median effective total dose of ionized radiation was 40.2 mSv, with an intraquartile range of 30.5 to 47.2 mSv. A dose of 40.2 mSv is the equivalent of approximately 1,005 chest radiographs.

Conclusion: Trauma patients meeting the less acute major triage criteria are exposed to clinically important radiation doses from diagnostic radiographic imaging during the first 24 hours of their care. [Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52:93-97.]

What is already known on this topic
Computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used in the routine evaluation of trauma patients. Ionizing radiation from CT can increase lifetime cancer risk, especially in the very young.

What question this study addressed
The radiation exposure incurred during the first 24 hours by blunt trauma patients at a single trauma center.

What this study adds to our knowledge
The median number of CT scans was 3, and the median total dose was 40.2 mSv, equivalent to 1000 chest radiographs. CT of the chest-abdomen-pelvis contributed the greatest radiation doses of all scans and radiographs.

How this might change clinical practice Although radiographic studies are an important part of
the trauma evaluation, they should be used judiciously, with the goal of minimizing the patient's exposure to ionizing radiation.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
 
Last edited:
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Good point. The question is when or if this type of data will change practice. We're seeing a shift in the liability with tPA for stroke from getting sued for giving it to getting sued for not giving it. This will be much less cut and dried because the damage from the radiation will take decades to be seen. Right now we are all very unlikely to get sued for causing a cancer but we are certain to get sued for missing anything.
 
Good point. The question is when or if this type of data will change practice. We're seeing a shift in the liability with tPA for stroke from getting sued for giving it to getting sued for not giving it. This will be much less cut and dried because the damage from the radiation will take decades to be seen. Right now we are all very unlikely to get sued for causing a cancer but we are certain to get sued for missing anything.

Exactly - a brilliant Catch-22 in a litigious society, even 10 years after the fact in the case of cancer or if we opt'd to not shoot, for missing a pediatric case with some ST swelling of 4 or 5 mm at C2. I'd still err on the side of caution and get a lat CT c-spine, even if an inconclusive PE and deal with a cancer case down the road, if only to CYA.
 
Last edited:
I just did a lecture on this (CT radiation risks etc). I'll try and post it (fairly large file). Basically a lot of tests and a lot of radiation, but there is a theoretical vs real risk (LNT model).

looks like too large, I'll post a link.
 
That is a nice little lecture. I'll probably steal a citation or two for my Radiation Emergency Medicine lecture.

As a side note, I was/am seriously considering Carolinas for my real job.
 
Top