Evaluation of a suspended radiation protection system to reduce operator exposure in cardiology interventional procedures

The Effect of a Suspended Radiation Protection System on Occupational Radiation Doses During Infrarenal EVAR Procedures: A Randomised Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the protective effect of Zero Gravity (ZG) with conventional radiation protection during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Secondly, user experience was surveyed with a questionnaire on ergonomics.

METHODS

This was a single centre, prospective, randomised, two arm trial where 71 consecutive elective infrarenal EVAR procedures were randomised into two groups: (1) operator using ZG and assistant using conventional protection (n = 36), and (2) operator and assistant using conventional radiation protection (n = 35). A movable floor unit ZG system consists of a lead shield (1.0 mm Pb equivalent) for the front of the body and 0.5 mm Pb equivalent acrylic shielding for the head and neck. The ZG also includes arm flaps of 0.5 mm Pb equivalent covering the arm up to the elbow. Deep dose equivalent values, Hp(10) were measured with direct ion storage dosimeters (DIS) placed on various anatomical regions of the operator (axilla, chest, abdomen, and lower leg). Personal dose equivalent values, Hp(3) to eye lenses were measured in the operating and assisting surgeon using thermoluminescence dosimeters. The study was registered at the US National Institute of Health #NCT04078165.

RESULTS

Protection with the standard protection was superior in chest (0.0 vs. 0.1 μSv), abdomen (0.0 vs. 0.6 μSv), and lower leg (0.4 vs. 2.2 μSv) (p < .001). On the other hand, the ZG system yielded better shielding for the axilla (1.5 vs. 0.0 μSv) and eyes (6.3 vs. 1.1 μSv) of the operator. The use of ZG hampered the deployment of ancillary shields, which is particularly relevant for protection of the assisting surgeon. Users found ZG more cumbersome than conventional garments, it also impaired communication and reduced field of view.

CONCLUSION

Both ZG and conventional radiation protection reduced radiation exposure. Conventional protection allows better manoeuvrability at the price of wider exposure of the upper arm and axilla. ZG indirectly impaired protection of the assistant.

Frame-rate reduction to reduce radiation dose for cardiac device implantation is safe

Background

Radiation exposure to patient and surgeon during cardiac implantable electrical device (CIED) procedures remains a substantial health hazard to date. Advanced technical options for radiation dose reduction often pose considerable financial hurdles. We propose a near-zero cost, low-effort modification to a clinical x-ray system significantly reducing radiation dose during CIED implantation.

Objective

We aim to evaluate a reduced frame rate protocol in CIED implantation for complication rates and reduction in radiation exposure.

Methods

Starting May 2019, the frame rate during CIED implantations at our hospital was halved from 7.5 frames/s to 3.8 frames/s, and no further technical changes were made. During the following year, 264 patients were operated using this protocol and retrospectively compared with 231 cases implanted in the year before the protocol change, totaling 495 cases. Of these, 17%, 63%, and 19% were single-chamber, dual-chamber, or resynchronization devices, respectively. Incidence of complication prior to hospital discharge was considered the primary endpoint of the analysis. Radiation dose and procedural parameters were secondary endpoints.

Results

There was no increase in complications with the reduced frame rate protocol. Regression analysis further supported that the reduced frame rate radiation protocol was not associated with complication rates. Radiation exposure measured as dose area product was significantly reduced by ∼62% (median 369 [interquartile range 154-1207] cGy·cm² via the reduced frame rate protocol vs median 970 [interquartile range 400-1906] cGy·cm² with the standard frame rate; P < 0.01).

Conclusion

A reduction of frame rate during CIED implantation is safe in terms of complication incidence and effective in terms of reducing radiation exposure.

Effectiveness of staff radiation protection devices for interventional cardiology procedures

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of currently available radioprotective (RP) devices in reducing the dose to interventional cardiology staff, especially to the eye lens and brain.

METHODS

The performances of five RP devices (masks, caps, patient drapes, staff lead and lead-free aprons and Zero-Gravity (ZG) suspended radiation protection system) were assessed by means of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. A geometry representative of an interventional cardiology setup was modelled and several configurations, including beam projections and staff distance from the source, were investigated. In addition, measurements on phantoms were performed for masks and drapes.

RESULTS

An average dose reduction of 65% and 25% to the eyes and the brain respectively was obtained for the masks by MC simulations but a strong influence of the design was observed. The cap effectiveness for the brain ranges on average between 13% and 37%. Nevertheless, it was shown that only some upper parts of the brain were protected. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of lead and lead-free aprons. Of all the devices, the ZG system offered the highest protection to the brain and eye lens and a protection level comparable to the apron for the organs normally covered.

CONCLUSION

All investigated devices showed potential for dose reduction to specific organs. However, for masks, caps and drapes, it strongly depends on the design, exposure conditions and staff position. Therefore, for a clinical use, it is recommended to evaluate their effectiveness in the planned conditions of use.

Reducing stray radiation with a novel detachable lead arm support in percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

Placing radioprotective devices near patients reduces stray radiation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a promising technique for treating coronary artery disease. Therefore, lead arm support may effectively reduce occupational radiation dose to cardiologists.

Purpose

We aimed to estimate the reduction of stray radiation using a novel detachable lead arm support (DLAS) in PCI.

Materials and methods

A dedicated cardiovascular angiography system was equipped with the conventional 0.5‐mm lead curtain suspended from the table side rail. The DLAS was developed using an L‐shaped acrylic board and detachable water‐resistant covers encasing the 0.5‐, 0.75‐, or 1.0‐mm lead. The DLAS was placed adjacent to a female anthropomorphic phantom lying on the examination tabletop at the patient entrance reference point. An ionization chamber survey meter was placed 100 cm away from the isocenter to emulate the cardiologist's position. Dose reduction using the L‐shaped acrylic board, DLAS, lead curtain, and their combination each was measured at five heights (80–160 cm in 20‐cm increments) when acquiring cardiac images of the patient phantom with 10 gantry angulations, typical for PCI.

Results

Median dose reductions of stray radiation using the L‐shaped acrylic board were 9.0%, 8.8%, 12.4%, 12.3%, and 6.4% at 80‐, 100‐, 120‐, 140‐, and 160‐cm heights, respectively. Dose reduction using DLAS with a 0.5‐mm lead was almost identical to that using DLAS with 0.75‐ and 1.0‐mm leads; mean dose reductions using these three DLASs increased to 16.2%, 45.1%, 66.0%, 64.2%, and 43.0%, respectively. Similarly, dose reductions using the conventional lead curtain were 95.9%, 95.5%, 83.7%, 26.0%, and 19.6%, respectively. The combination of DLAS with 0.5‐mm lead and lead curtain could increase dose reductions to 96.0%, 95.8%, 93.8%, 71.1%, and 47.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

DLAS reduces stray radiation at 120‐, 140‐, and 160‐cm heights, where the conventional lead curtain provides insufficient protection.

CURRENT TRENDS OF RADIATION PROTECTION EQUIPMENT IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY

Interventional radiology represents subspecialty of radiology, which does not use imaging modalities only for diagnostics, but mostly for therapeutic purposes. Realisation of interventional procedures is done through X-rays, which replaces direct visual control done by interventional radiologist or cardiologist. For the targeted reduction of the radiation exposure, the interventional radiology staff use personal protective equipment. Usually, aprons with lead-equivalent are used, which provide protection for 75% of the radiosensitive organs. As the eye lens and thyroid gland belong to the radiosensitive organs, lead eyeglasses and thyroid collar are commonly used for their protection. Cap and gloves with lead-equivalent can be utilised as an additional personal protective equipment, that is commercially available. Innovative protection systems, such as mobile radiation protection cabin and suspended radiation protection, have been designed to ensure better radiation protection and safety. These systems provide the comfort for the interventional radiologists at work, while offering better protection against ionising radiation.

Occupational exposure to physicians working with a Zero-Gravity™ protection system in haemodynamic and electrophysiology labs and the assessment of its performance against a standard ceiling suspended shield

A two centre clinical study was performed to analyse exposure levels of cardiac physicians performing electrophysiology and haemodynamic procedures with the use of state of the art Zero-Gravity™ radiation protective system (ZG). The effectiveness of ZG was compared against the commonly used ceiling suspended lead shield (CSS) in a haemodynamic lab. The operator's exposure was assessed using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) during both ablation (radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation (CRYA)) and angiography and angioplasty procedures (CA/PCI). The dosimeters were placed in multiple body regions: near the left eye, on the left side of the neck, waist and chest, on both hands and ankles during each measurement performed with the use of ZG. In total 29 measurements were performed during 105 procedures. To compare the effectiveness of ZG against CSS an extra 80 measurements were performed with the standard lead apron, thyroid collar and ceiling suspended lead shield during CA/PCI procedures. For ZG, the upper values for the average eye lens and whole body doses per procedure were 4 µSv and 16 µSv for the left eye lens in electrophysiology lab (with additionally used CSS) and haemodynamic lab (without CSS), respectively, and about 10 µSv for the remaining body parts (neck, chest and waist) in both labs. The skin doses to hands and ankles non-protected by the ZG were 5 µSv for the most exposed left finger and left ankle in electrophysiology lab, while in haemodynamic lab 150 µSv and 17 µSv, respectively. The ZG performance was 3 times (p < 0.05) and at least 15 times (p < 0.05) higher for the eye lenses and thoracic region, respectively, compared to CSS (with dosimeters on the apron/collar). However, when only ZG was used slightly higher normalised doses were observed for the left finger compared to CSS (5.88e - 2 Sv/Gym² vs. 4.31 e - 2 Sv/Gym², p = 0.016). The study results indicate that ZG performance is superior to CSS. It can be simultaneously used with the ceiling suspended lead shield to ensure the protection to the hands as long as this is not obstructive for the work.

Effectiveness of a Real-Time X-ray Dosimetry Monitor in Reducing Radiation Exposure in Coronary Procedures: The ESPRESSO-Raysafe Randomized Trial

Background—Several methods to reduce radiation exposure in the setting of coronary procedures are available on the market, and we previously showed that additional radiation shields reduce operator exposure during radial interventions. We set out to examine the efficacy of real-time personal dosimetry monitoring in a real-world setting of radial artery catheterization. Methods and Results—In an all-comer prospective, parallel study, consecutive coronary diagnostic and intervention procedures were performed with the use of standard radiation shield alone (control group) or with the addition of a real-time dosimetry monitoring system (Raysafe, Billdal, Sweden, monitoring group). The primary outcome was the difference in exposure of the primary operator among groups. Additional endpoints included patient, nurse, second operator exposure and fluoroscopy time. A total of 700 procedures were included in the analysis (n = 369 in the monitoring group). There were no differences among groups in patients’ body mass index (p = 0.232), type of procedure (intervention vs. diagnostic, p = 0.172), and patient sex (p = 0.784). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in the monitoring group (5.6 (5.1–6.2) min vs. 7.0 (6.1–7.7) min, p = 0.023). Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the monitoring group for the patient (135 (115–151) µSv vs. 208 (176–245) µSv, p < 0.0001) but not for the first operator (9 (7–11) µSv vs. 10 (8–11), p = 0.70) and the assistant (2 (1–2) µSv vs. 2 (1–2) µSv, p = 0.121). Conclusions—In clinical daily practice, the use of a real-time dosimetry monitoring device reduces patient radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time without an effect on operator radiation exposure.