Radioprotection 60-3 | Page 30

230 R. A. C. Guassu et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 3), 221 – 233 Fig. 10. Effective doses calculated for interventionists B( white boxplot) and reference doses( R) using a single chest dosimeter( gray boxplot) for the metered-dose modalities: coronary angiography( CoAG A and CoAG R), coronary angioplasty( CoAP A and CoAP R), cerebral angiography( CeAG A and CeAG R), peripheral angiography( PeAG A and PeAG R) and coronary angioplasty( PeAP A and PeAP R).

Table 3. Number of evaluated exams for all procedure modalities.

4.3 Peripheral angiography

Interventionist B is a resident physician for peripheral angiography, which most of the time is positioned at the lateral of the table and presented an exposure profile similar to interventionist A differing only in the abdomen regions( medians: 270 mSv and 110 mSv) and hand( medians: 440 mSv and 170 mSv). Despite their distance differences, interventionist B presented higher dose in the foot when compared to interventionist A( medians: 50 mSv and 120 mSv), this may be explained since there is no floor protection on the right side of the table.

4.4 Peripheral angioplasty

The peripheral angioplasty presented in Figure 7 is a modality like peripheral angiography, where interventionist B is a resident physician. However, due to the adversities of the procedure, interventionist B has lower contributions, acting primarily for assistance in the process. In this way, some regions present exposure profiles similar to interventionist A but with lower medians, like the abdomen( medians: 180 mSv and 110 mSv). Peripheral angioplasty is carried out at the end of the table; it results in almost identical exposure levels of the

Table 4. Multiplicative calculated factors( f) for estimation of effective dose through P KA </ sub >.

± 0.0566 Peripheral angioplasty 0.1002

± 0.1230

abdomen and hand in interventionist A( medians: 180 mSv and 130 mSv). This is because the tube is positioned so that the main beam is in the region that will receive the angioplasty near the abdomen at the end of the table.

4.5 General considerations

± 0.0639 0.0988 ± 0.1423

When analyzing Figures 3 – 7 it is possible to notice differences in the exposure levels of the different regions for both interventionists A and B. These variations can be attributed to the different positions occupied by the interventionists during the procedures, highlighting the lack of homogeneity in the doses received in different areas during the same procedure. This lack of homogeneity emphasizes the