Patients gettin double the natural radiation exposure.

Like so many medical prodeedures and drugs, the true risks are not known, bcause of a lack of reliable testing. The latest example is questions being raised about radiation levels from medical imaging, a widespread prceedure.

Pulished in New England Journal of Medicine, the study included nearly one million adults between the ages of 18 and 64. About 70 percent of the study participants underwent at least one medical imaging procedure between July 2005 and December 2007.

Women and Older Patients at Most Risk
The medical imaging exposed the patients to an average effective dose of radiation nearly double the amount they would otherwise be exposed to from natural sources. Women and older individuals were at greater risk for radiation exposure, according to the report.

The study looked at imaging procedures involving radiation for diagnostic or treatment purposes;

1:  Computed tomography (CT) scans and nuclear imaging accounted for three-fourths of radiation exposure

2:  Nuclear stress tests to detect coronary heart disease, also known as myocardial perfusion imaging, was found to be the procedure accounting for the largest single radiation exposure .

3:  Procedures in which radiation was speifically delivered for treatment, such as radiation for cancer, were excluded.

Lack of Risk Benefit Strudies

In an accompanying Perspective article, “Elements of Danger – The Case of Medical Imaging,” Michael S. Lauer, M.D., director of the Divisions of Prevention and Population Sciences and of Cardiovascular Diseases at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), calls for more research to demonstrate whether the use of cardiovascular imaging tests, such as myocardial perfusion imaging and CT scans, improves patient outcomes. He notes that “no large-scale, randomized trials have shown that imaging [in patients with stable or suspected heart disease] prolongs life, improves quality of life, prevents major clinical events [such as heart attacks], or reduces long-term medical costs.” The NHLBI is part of the National Institutes of Health.

Studies are needed to determine whether the benefits of such imaging procedures to diagnosis and treat patients outweigh the potential risks of cumulative radiation exposure, according to Lauer. He calls on clinicians to “think and talk explicitly about the elements of danger in exposing our patients to radiation. This means taking a careful history to determine the cumulative dose of radiation a patient has already received and providing proper, personalized information to each patient about the risk” of developing cancer from cumulative exposure to radiation.

Notwithstanding the constant flag waving of science by drug based medicine, unfortunatly, there are to many medical procedures and drugs that are  accepted and sold to patients without solid scientific evidence they work, or do not cause harm. This is the latest example.

Source
New England Journal of Medicine