[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
June 1996

Chronic Radiodermatitis Following Cardiac Catheterization

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Dermatology (Drs Lichtenstein, Klapholz, Vardy, Klaus, and Gilead), Radiology (Dr Leichter), and Cardiology (Dr Mosseri), Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel.

Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(6):663-667. doi:10.1001/archderm.1996.03890300085012
Abstract

Background:  Fluoroscopy and cineradiography used during coronary angiography expose patients to some of the highest doses of ionizing radiation in diagnostic radiology. The possibility of radiation-induced damage has been discussed by several authors in the past. However, to the best of our knowledge, chronic radiation dermatitis caused by exposure to x-rays during cardiac catheterization has not been described.

Observations:  We describe 4 patients in whom chronic radiodermatitis developed following multiple cardiac catheterizations and coronary angioplasties. The cumulative radiation doses to which these patients were exposed were retrospectively calculated to be a mean of 24.6 Gy per patient, with a range of 11.4 to 34.9 Gy.

Conclusions:  Chronic radiodermatitis is a threat in patients undergoing multiple cardiac catheterizations and angioplasties. In susceptible patients, radiation doses as small as 11.4 Gy, which can sometimes be emitted during 1 or 2 procedures, are potentially harmful. Awareness and protective measures against this long-term side effect of cardiac catheterization should be encouraged.(Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:663-667)

References
1.
Frieben H.  Demonstration eines Cancroid des recthen Handrückens, das sich nach langdauernder Einwirkung von Rontgenstrahlen entwickelt hatte .  Fortschr Rontgenstr. 1902;6:106-111.
2.
Miller SW, Castronovo FP Jr.  Radiation exposure and protection in cardiac catheterization laboratories .  Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:171-176.Crossref
3.
Rueter FG.  Physician and patient exposure during cardiac catheterization .  Circulation . 1978;58:134-139.Crossref
4.
Cascade PN, Peterson LE, Wajszczuk WJ, Mantel J.  Radiation exposure to patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty .  Am J Cardiol. 1987;60:1401-1403.Crossref
5.
Lance-Pattee P, Jhons PC, Chambers RJ.  Radiation risk to patients from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty .  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22: 1044-1051.Crossref
6.
Malkinson FD.  Radiobiology of the skin . In: Fitzpatrick TB, Eisen AZ, Wolf K, Freedberg IM, Austen KF, eds.  Dermatology in General Practice . 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International Book Co; 1993:1598-1608.
7.
Huda W, Peters KR.  Radiation-induced temporary epilation after a neuroradiologically guided embolization procedure .  Radiology . 1994;193:642-644.Crossref
8.
Epstein E.  Safety of x-ray therapy .  Cutis . 1987;39:373-376.
9.
Turesson I, Notter G.  Dose-response and dose-latency relationships for human skin after various fractionation schedules .  Br J Cancer Suppl. 1986;53 ( (7) ):67-72.
10.
Sulzberger MB, Baer RL, Borota A.  Do Roentgen ray treatments as given by skin specialists produce cancers or other sequelae?  Arch Dermatol. 1952;65: 639-655.
11.
Rowell NR.  A follow-up study of superficial radiotherapy for benign dermatoses: recommendation for the use of x-rays in dermatology .  Br J Dermatol. 1973;88:583-590.Crossref
12.
Van Vloten WA, Hermans J, van Daal WAJ.  Radiation-induced skin cancer and radiodermatitis of the head and neck .  Cancer . 1987;59:411-414.Crossref
13.
Goldschmidt H, Sherwin WK.  Reactions to ionizing radiation .  J Am Acad Dermatol. 1980;3:551-579.Crossref
14.
Hanson WR, Thomas C.  16,16-Dimethyl prostaglandin E2 increases survival of murine intestinal stem cells when given before photon radiation .  Radiat Res. 1983;96:393-398.Crossref
15.
Geng L, Hanson WR, Malkinson FD.  Topical or systemic 16,16-dimethyl prostaglandin E2 or WR-2721 (WR1065) protects mice from alopecia after fractionated irradiation .  Int J Radiat Biol. 1992;61:533-537.Crossref
×