Study sees rise in imaging exams for pregnant women

Study sees rise in imaging exams for pregnant women
A pregnant woman is seen behind a curtain in a file photo. Pregnant women are receiving more high-tech imaging exams, exposing their babies to higher doses of radiation than a decade ago, a study said on Tuesday. (Mykhailo Markiv/Reuters)CHICAGO (Reuters) - Pregnant women are receiving morehigh-tech imaging exams, exposing their babies to higher dosesof radiation than a decade ago, a study said on Tuesday.
While the levels of radiation exposure are low, they carrya slight risk of harm to the developing fetus, said studyauthor Elizabeth Lazarus, a professor of diagnostic imaging atthe Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University inProvidence, Rhode Island.
A review of 5,235 imaging examinations performed onpregnant women at Brown from 1997 to 2006 found the number ofthose exams rose 121 percent. The exams included computedtomography (CT), nuclear medicine and plain film X-rays.
An abdominal ultrasound, a routine exam performed duringpregnancy, does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation,which can cause cell damage.
CT exams, which deliver more radiation than otherprocedures, saw the greatest increase in use, rising by about25 percent a year. Use of X-rays increased 7 percent a year,and nuclear medical exams rose by 12 percent annually.
CT scans are used in pregnancy only to detect potentiallylife-threatening conditions such as bleeding in the brain,blood clots in the lungs or appendicitis.
Researchers estimated the average fetal radiation exposurefor CT was 0.69 rads, compared to 0.04 rads for nuclear testsand 0.0015 rads for X-rays. The data were released at a meetingof the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago.
"A patient being recommended for a test like this shouldtalk to their doctor to find out if there are any alternativetests or if there is any harm waiting," Lazarus said in aninterview.
"But if one of these tests is needed, we would notdiscourage any patients from undergoing one, because making adiagnosis could also be life-saving."
(Reporting by Susan Kelly, editing by Philip Barbara)