**4. Conclusion**

Research regarding CVD risk related to ionizing radiation is an important way forward to complement epidemiological data with the underlying biological and molecular mechanisms. This is especially important for doses <0.5 Gy, for which epidemiological data are suggestive rather than persuasive. Indeed, due to limited statistical power, the dose-risk relationship is undetermined below 0.5 Gy, but if this relationship proves to be without a threshold, it may have a considerable impact on current low-dose health risk estimates. In this regard, a complete understanding of the pathological effects of ionizing radiation regarding endothelial dysfunction is needed. In addition, it will help in the identification of protective strategies as well as a set of predictive biomarkers for radiation-induced cardiovascular disorders.

[4] Authors of behalf of ICRP SF, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M, Henddy JH, Kleiman NJ, Macvittie TJ, Aleman BM, Edgar AB, Mabuchi K, Muirhead CR, et al. ICRP publication 118. ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissue and organ—Threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context.

Selected Endothelial Responses after Ionizing Radiation Exposure

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72386

379

[5] Little MP. Radiation and circulatory disease. Mutation Research. 2016;**770**(Pt B):299-318

[6] Baselet B, Rombouts C, Benotmane AM, Baatout S, Aerts A. Cardiovascular diseases related to ionizing radiation: The risk of low-dose exposure (review). International

[7] Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003;**100**(24):13761-13766

[8] UNSCEAR. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Annex A: medical radiation exposures. Report to the General Assembly with annexes. New york, NY: United Nations. 2008

[9] Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. The British Journal of

[10] Picano E, Vano E, Rehani MM, Cuocolo A, Mont L, Bodi V, et al. The appropriate and justified use of medical radiation in cardiovascular imaging: A position document of the ESC associations of cardiovascular imaging, percutaneous cardiovascular interventions

[11] Shapiro BP, Mergo PJ, Snipelisky DF, Kantor B, Gerber TC. Radiation dose in cardiac imaging: How should it affect clinical decisions? American Journal of Roentgenology.

[12] Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott,

[13] Martin A, Harbison S, Beach K, Cole P. An Introduction to Radiation Protection. 6th ed.

[14] Dendy PP, Heaton B. Physics for Diagnostic Radiology. 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis Inc:

[15] Kudriashov IB, Kudriashov YB. Radiation Biophysics (Ionizing Radiations). 1st ed.

[16] Maalouf M, Durante M, Foray N. Biological effects of space radiation on human cells: History, advances and outcomes. Journal of Radiation Research. 2011;**52**(2):126-146

[17] Durante M, Loeffler JS. Charged particles in radiation oncology. Nature Reviews.

[18] ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological pro-

tection. ICRP publication 103. Annals of the ICRP. 2007;**37**(2-4):1-332

and electrophysiology. European Heart Journal. 2014;**35**(10):665-672

Annals of the ICRP. 2012;**41**:322

Radiology. 2008;**81**(965):362-378

2013;**200**(3):508-514

Williams & Wilkins; 2012

Bosa Roca, US; 2012. 695 p

London: Hodder Arnold; 2012. 256 p

Clinical Oncology. 2010;**7**(1):37-43

New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc; 2008. 327 p

Journal of Molecular Medicine. 2016;**38**(6):1623-1641
