Advertisement

Determination of radiation dose from patients undergoing Tc-99m Sestamibi nuclear cardiac imaging

  • O. GünayEmail author
  • M. Sarıhan
  • O. Yarar
  • M. Abuqbeitah
  • M. Demir
  • K. Sönmezoğlu
  • E. Abamor
  • Ö. E. Kara
  • N. İpek Işıkcı
  • S. Aközcan
  • F. Kulalı
  • H. Öztürk
  • D. Yaşar
  • Ö. Gündoğdu
Original Paper

Abstract

To date, myocardial perfusion (MP) has been utilized to assess the adequacy of blood flow to the myocardium in order to determine the ischemic heart diseases. With the advent of SPECT/CT, MP became the most common investigation in the field of nuclear cardiology with more accuracy and details. Thallium-201 and Technetium-99m (Tc-99m) have been early used in cardiac nuclear imaging. Half-life of Tc-99m is 6 h, and its energy is 140 keV, while the half-life of Tl-201 is as longer as 73 h, its X-ray energies range between 69 and 81 kV in addition to gamma rays of 135 keV and 167 keV. The purpose of the present study was to explore the radiation dose rates emitted from the patients following Tc-99m sestamibi injection. To achieve that, the radiation emanated to the environment was measured at different distances from patients and various time intervals for 20 patients using GM counter. The mean radioactivity administered to the patients was 391.1 MBq (10.6 mCi), with a range between 276.8 MBq to maximum of 515.4 MBq. Radiation dose rate was found 9.07 μSv h−1 at 1 m distance from the patient’s chest level after 7.6 min, then decayed to 7.93 μSv h−1 after 36.5 min, and 7.83 μSv h−1 later to 66.4 min. It was concluded that 1 m distance from the patients sounds sensibly adequate to maintain the occupational dose within the safe limit following Tc-99m sestamibi injection, while verification of public dose rate ≤ 1 μSv h−1 at 1 m distance from the patient prolongs to 14 h following Tc-99m injection.

Keywords

Radiation dose rate Tc-99m Hospital management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the Hospital of Istanbul Okan University for cooperation in this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the current study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration. Istanbul Okan University, Research Ethics Committee, approved this study with Decision number: 94 (Date: 09.05.2018). Ethics Committee Members: Prof. Dr. Mithat Kıyak, Prof. Dr. Mazhar Semih Baskan, Prof. Dr. Dilek Öztürk, Prof. Dr. Dilek Sirvanlı Özen, Prof. Dr. Ali Tayfun Atay, Dr. Nermin Bölükbaşı, Dr. Nihat Özaydın, Dr. Kerime Derya Beydağ

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abuqbeitah M, Demir M, Uslu-Beşli L, Yeyin N, Sönmezoğlu K (2017) Blood clearance and occupational exposure for177Lu-DOTATATE compared to177Lu-PSMA radionuclide therapy. Radiat Environ Biophys.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-017-0721-6 Google Scholar
  2. Akkurt I, Uyanik NA, Günoğlu K (2015) Radiation dose Estimation: an in vitro Measurement for Isparta-Turkey. IJCESEN 1(1):1–4.  https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.194376 Google Scholar
  3. Aközcan S, Yılmaz M, Külahcı F (2014) Dose rate and seasonal variations of 238U,232Th, 226Ra, 40K and 137Cs radionuclides in soils along Thrace, Turkey. J Radional Nucl Chem 299:95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-013-2730-5 Google Scholar
  4. Batista JF, Pereztol O, Valdés JA, Sánchez E, Stusser R, Rochela LM, López D, Garcia EV (1999) Improved detection of myocardial perfusion reversibility by rest-nitroglycerin Tc-99m-MIBI: comparison with Tl-201 reinjection. J Nucl Cardiol 6(5):480–486Google Scholar
  5. Bera G, Soret M, Maisonobe J A, Giron A, Garnier JM, Habert MO, Kas A (2018) Equivalent dose rate from patients after whole-body FDG-PET/CT. Méd Nucl 42(1):45–48. ISSN 0928-1258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mednuc.2017.11.003
  6. Çelen YY, Evcin A (2018a) Differentiation of using flattening filter free energy in Vmat plans for prostate cancer. In: ITM web of conferences, vol 22, p 01049. EDP Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20182201049
  7. Çelen YY, Evcin A (2018b) Comparison of different algorithms in the radiotherapy plans of breast cancer. In: ITM web of conferences, vol 22, p 01048. EDP Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20182201048
  8. Çetin B, Öner F, Akkurt I (2016) Determination of natural radioactivity and associated radiological hazard in excavation field in Turkey (OluzHöyük). Acta Phys Pol A 130:475–478.  https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.130.475 Google Scholar
  9. Cronin B, Marsden PK, O’Doherty MJ (1999) Are restrictions to behavior of patients required following fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic studies? Eur J Nucl Med 26:121–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590050367 Google Scholar
  10. Demir M (2015) Radiobiological effects, protection of the patient, protection of caregivers, protection of those around the patient and the environment. Nucl Med Semin 3:171–179.  https://doi.org/10.4274/nts.0026 Google Scholar
  11. Demir M, Demir B, Sayman H, Sager S, Sabbir Ahmed A, Uslu I (2011) Radiation protection for accompanying person and radiation workers in PET/CT. Radiat Prot Dosim 147:528–532.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq497 Google Scholar
  12. Demir N, Kıvrak A, Üstün M, Cesur A, Boztosun I (2017) experimental study for the energy levels of Europium by the Clinic LINAC. IJCESEN 3–1(2017):47–49Google Scholar
  13. Fayad E, Maia S, Zilnus A (2015) Care continuity in post-scintigraphy period and radioactivity exposure of medical and technical staff. Med Nucl (Paris) 39:380–385Google Scholar
  14. Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Moriel M, Mazzanti M, Su HT, van Train KF, Berman DS (1995) Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPET. J Nucl Med 36:2138–2147Google Scholar
  15. Günay O (2018) Determination of natural radioactivity and radiological effects in some soil samples in Beykoz-Istanbul. Eur J Sci Technol 12:9–14. ISSN 2148-2683Google Scholar
  16. Günay O, Abamor E (2018) Environmental radiation dose rate arising from patients of PET/CT. Int J Environ Sci Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-2040-0 Google Scholar
  17. Günay O, Saç MM, Içhedef M, Taşköprü C (2018) Natural radioactivity analysis of soil samples from Ganos fault (GF). Int J Environ Sci Technol ISSN 1735-1472, Online ISSN 1735-2630.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1793-9
  18. Kara U, Kara Y, Akkurt I (2016a) A study on radiation in operating room in Suleyman Demirel University. Acta Phys Pol A 129(1):401–403.  https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.129.401 Google Scholar
  19. Kara U, Tekin HO, Akkurt I (2016b) Computed tomography routine examinations and the related risk of cancer. Acta Phys Pol A 129(1):409–4011.  https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.129.409 Google Scholar
  20. Kara U, Yildiz M, Akkurt I (2017a) Investigation of radiation exposure dose from nuclear medicine procedures (Tc-99m MAG-3). Acta Phys Pol A 132(3):883–885.  https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.132.883 Google Scholar
  21. Kara U, Kaya A, Tekin HO, Akkurt I (2017b) Adult patient radiation doses with multislice computed tomography exam: MSCT Standard Protocols. Acta Phys Pol A 132(3):1126–1127.  https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.132.1126 Google Scholar
  22. Maurea S, Cuocolo A, Soricelli A, Castelli L et al (1995) Enhanced detection of viable myocardium by technetium-99m-MIBI imaging after nitrate administration in chronic coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med 36:1945–1952Google Scholar
  23. Mavi B, Akkurt I (2010) Natural radioactivity and radiation hazards in some building materials used in Isparta, Turkey. Radiat Phys Chem 79(9):933–939.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2010.03.019 Google Scholar
  24. Quinn B, Holahan B, Aime J, Humm J, Germain JS, Dauer L (2012) Measured dose rate constant from oncology patients administered 18F for positron emission tomography. Med Phys 39:6071–60719.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4749966 Google Scholar
  25. Seçkiner S, Akkurt I, Günoglu K (2017) Determination of 40 K concentration in gravel samples from Konyaaltı Beach. Antalya. Acta Phys Pol A 132(3-II):1095–1097.  https://doi.org/10.12693/aphyspola.132.1095 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Günay
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. Sarıhan
    • 1
  • O. Yarar
    • 1
  • M. Abuqbeitah
    • 3
  • M. Demir
    • 3
  • K. Sönmezoğlu
    • 3
  • E. Abamor
    • 4
  • Ö. E. Kara
    • 4
  • N. İpek Işıkcı
    • 5
  • S. Aközcan
    • 6
  • F. Kulalı
    • 7
  • H. Öztürk
    • 1
  • D. Yaşar
    • 8
  • Ö. Gündoğdu
    • 2
  1. 1.Vocational School of Health ServicesIstanbul Okan UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of TechnologyKocaeli UniversityKocaeliTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cerrahpasa Faculty of MedicineIstanbul University-CerrahpasaIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Istanbul Okan University HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  5. 5.Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureNisantasi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  6. 6.Faculty of Art and ScienceKirklareli UniversityKirklareliTurkey
  7. 7.Vocational School of Health ServicesUsküdar UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  8. 8.Faculty of Art and ScienceAhi Evran UniversityKirşehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations