Efficacy of RADPAD protective drape during coronary angiography

Implementing a 'Lead [Apron]-Free' Cardiac Catheterization: Current Status

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we discuss the status of novel radiation shielding and other methods to reduce radiation exposure and its associated health risks within the CCL.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are many devices on the market each with its unique advantages and inherent flaws. Several are available for widespread use with promising data, while others still in development. The field of percutaneous transcatheter interventions includes complex procedures often involving significant radiation exposure. Increased radiation exposes the proceduralist and CCL staff to potential harm from both direct effects of radiation but also from the ergonomic consequences of daily use of heavy personal protective equipment. Here we discuss several innovative efforts to reduce both radiation exposure and orthopedic injury within the CCL that are available, leading to a safer daily routine in a "lead [apron]-free" environment.

RAdiation Dose Attenuation using RADPAD in CATH lab for primary and secondary operators - RADAR-CATH STUDY

Background

Radiation injury is an important concern for interventional cardiologists and needs to be addressed. RADPAD is a radiation protection drape that has been shown to reduce the radiation exposure of the primary operator (PO). While Indian data on radiation exposure of the PO in the cath lab are scarce, the exposure of the secondary operator (SO) is even less well studied.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of RADPAD drapes in reducing radiation doses in the cath lab for the primary as well as the secondary operator.

Methods

A total of 160 patients (40 patients each with single vessel disease [SVD], double vessel disease [DVD] and triple vessel disease [TVD] undergoing coronary angioplasty, and 40 patients undergoing balloon mitral valvuloplasty [BMV]) were randomised in a 1:1 pattern to undergo a procedure with or without the use of RADPAD.

Results

For patients with SVD, DVD and TVD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those undergoing BMV, the % reduction with the use of RADPAD reduced the PO's received dose (in mrem) by 65%, 54%, 28% and 67%, respectively, as compared to without RADPAD. The % reduction in relative operator exposure for the PO for the 4 groups was 55%, 34%, 18% and 75%, respectively, with the use of RADPAD. The corresponding % reduction for the SO's received dose (in mrem) was 80%, 63%, 33% and 69% and for relative operator exposure was 74%, 46%, 23% and 76% in the 4 groups, respectively.

Conclusions

RADPAD significantly reduces the radiation exposure of the primary and secondary operator during prolonged complex PCI and BMV procedures.

Assessing the Efficacy of RADPAD Protection Drape in Reducing Radiation Exposure to Operators in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

One of the leading environmental hazards, ionizing radiation, is linked to several detrimental health consequences in the body. RADPAD (Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas) is a sterile, lead-free, lightweight, disposable radiation protection shield. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of RADPAD protection drapes in the cardiac catheterization lab and how they can aid interventional cardiologists in becoming subjected to less scatter radiation. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies discussing the efficacy of RADPAD protection drapes in reducing radiation exposure to operators in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for endpoints: primary operator exposure dose, dose area product (DAP), relative exposure, and screening time. Our analysis included 892 patients from six studies. Compared to the No-RADPAD group, primary operator exposure dose (E) was significantly lower in the RADPAD group (OR: -0.9, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.43, I2 = 80.5%, p = 0.0001). DAP was comparable between both groups (OR: 0.008, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, p = 0.9066). There was no difference in the relative exposure (E/DAP) (OR: -0.47, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.02, I2 = 0%, p = 0.90) and screening time (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.35, I2 = 0%, p = 0.22) between the two groups. The interventional cardiology laboratory is exposed to significantly less scatter radiation during procedures owing to the RADPAD protective drape. Consequently, all catheterization laboratories could be advised to employ RADPAD protective drapes.

Assessing lead curtains' impact on radiation protection in coronary interventions

The objective of this investigation is to assess the impact of supplementary lead curtains on the reduction of radiation dose exposure to operators during coronary interventional procedures. Seven standard positions during coronary angiography (foot, right foot, head, left foot, left lateral, left head, and right lateral) were simulated on a standard anthropomorphic phantom with radial artery access. Measurements were taken at two different heights, 125 cm and 155 cm, and dosimeters were used to measured surface incident dose rates for the first and second operators, both with and without additional lead curtains at various positions. Each position was measured 20 times, and arithmetic means were computed. At-test was utilised to compare dose rates with and without supplementary lead curtains, as well as dose rates with additional lead curtains at varying heights. The finding indicate that the dose rates of the first operator with supplementary lead curtains were not significantly lower compared to those without, except for the 125 cm head and left foot positions and the 155 cm head position with the additional lead curtain edge 10 cm below the umbilical level (tumbilical= 0.9, 0.4, 0.5,P> 0.05). The dose rates of the second operator with additional lead curtains were significantly lower than those without, with statistically significant differences (P< 0.05). The arithmetic mean dose rates for the first and second operators at each position were lowest when the upper edge of the additional lead curtain was situated 10 cm above the umbilical level. Employing supplementary lead curtains during coronary interventions effectively reduces radiation doses received by operators. The protective effect is enhanced when the additional lead curtain is closer to the irradiation field. Hence, it is recommended that additional curtains be employed judiciously, while ensuring that clinical procedures are not impeded, in order to effectively mitigate the radiation exposure of operators.

Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

As numbers and complexity of percutaneous coronary interventions are constantly increasing, optimal radiation protection is required to ensure operator safety. Suspended radiation protection systems (SRPS) and protective scatter-radiation absorbing drapes (PAD) are novel methods to mitigate fluoroscopic scattered radiation exposure. The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness regarding radiation protection of a SRPS and a PAD in comparison with conventional protection.

METHODS

A total of 229 cardiac catheterization procedures with SRPS (N = 73), PAD (N = 82) and standard radiation protection (N = 74) were prospectively included. Real-time dosimeter data were collected from the first operator and the assistant. Endpoints were the cumulative operator exposure relative to the dose area product [standardized operator exposure (SOE)] for the first operator and the assistant.

RESULTS

For the first operator, the SRPS and the PAD significantly decreased the overall SOE compared to conventional shielding by 93.9% and 66.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). The protective effect of the SRPS was significantly higher compared to the PAD (P < 0.001). For the assistant, the SRPS and the PAD provided a not statistically significant reduction compared to conventional shielding in the overall SOE by 38.0% and 30.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The SRPS and the PAD enhance radiation protection significantly compared to conventional protection. In most clinical scenarios, the protective effect of SRPS is significantly higher than the additional protection provided by the PAD. Comparison of the additional radiation protection provided by protective scatter-radiation absorbing drapes (PAD) and the suspended radiation protection system (SRPS) system over standard protection with lead aprons.

What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel?

Protection against occupational radiation exposure in clinical settings is important. This paper clarifies the present status of medical occupational exposure protection and possible additional safety measures. Radiation injuries, such as cataracts, have been reported in physicians and staff who perform interventional radiology (IVR), thus, it is important that they use shielding devices (e.g., lead glasses and ceiling-suspended shields). Currently, there is no single perfect radiation shield; combinations of radiation shields are required. Radiological medical workers must be appropriately educated in terms of reducing radiation exposure among both patients and staff. They also need to be aware of the various methods available for estimating/reducing patient dose and occupational exposure. When the optimizing the dose to the patient, such as eliminating a patient dose that is higher than necessary, is applied, exposure of radiological medical workers also decreases without any loss of diagnostic benefit. Thus, decreasing the patient dose also reduces occupational exposure. We propose a novel four-point policy for protecting medical staff from radiation: patient dose Optimization, Distance, Shielding, and Time (pdO-DST). Patient dose optimization means that the patient never receives a higher dose than is necessary, which also reduces the dose received by the staff. The patient dose must be optimized: shielding is critical, but it is only one component of protection from radiation used in medical procedures. Here, we review the radiation protection/reduction basics for radiological medical workers, especially for IVR staff.

Radiation protection for the interventional cardiologist: Practical approach and innovations

Use of ionizing radiation during cardiac catheterization interventions adversely impacts both the patients and medical staff. In recent years, radiation dose in cardiac catheterization interventions has become a topic of increasing interest in interventional cardiology and there is a strong interest in reducing radiation exposure during the procedures. This review presents the current status of radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and summarizes a practical approach for radiation dose management for minimizing radiation exposure. This review also presents recent innovations that have clinical potential for reducing radiation during cardiac interventions.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of strategies to reduce radiation exposure to proceduralists performing cardiac catheterization procedures: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the best available evidence on the effect of various radiation protection strategies on radiation dose received by proceduralists performing cardiac catheterization procedures involving fluoroscopy.

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac catheterization procedures under fluoroscopy are the gold standard diagnostic and treatment method for patients with coronary artery disease. The growing demand of procedures means that proceduralists are being exposed to increasing amounts of radiation, resulting in an increased risk of deterministic and stochastic effects. Standard protective strategies and equipment such as lead garments reduce radiation exposure; however, the evidence surrounding additional equipment is contradictory.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that compared the use of an additional radiation protection strategy with conventional radiation protection methods were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome of interest was the radiation dose received by the proceduralist during cardiac catheterization procedures.

METHODS

A three-step search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). Trials published in the English language with adult participants were included. Trials published from database inception until July 2019 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for randomized controlled trials. Quantitative data were extracted from the included papers using the JBI data extraction tool. Results that could not be pooled in meta-analysis were reported in a narrative form.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included in the review. Six radiation protection strategies were assessed: leaded and unleaded pelvic or arm drapes, transradial protection board, remotely controlled mechanical contrast injector, extension tubing for contrast injection, real-time radiation monitor, and a reduction in frame rate to 7.5 frames per second. Pooled data from two trials demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the mean radiation dose (P < 0.00001) received by proceduralists performing transfemoral cardiac catheterization on patients who received a leaded pelvic drape compared to standard protection. One trial that compared the use of unleaded pelvic drapes placed on patients compared to standard protection reported a statistically significant decrease (P = 0.004) in the mean radiation dose received by proceduralists.Compared to standard protection, two trials that used unleaded arm drapes for patients, one trial that used a remotely controlled mechanical contrast injector, and one trial that used a transradial protection board demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the radiation dose received by proceduralists.Similarly, using a frame rate of 7.5 versus 15 frames per second and monitoring radiation dose in real-time radiation significantly lowered the radiation dose received by the proceduralist. One trial demonstrated no statistically significant difference in proceduralist radiation dose among those who used the extension tubing compared to standard protection (P = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence to support the use of leaded pelvic drapes for patients as an additional radiation protection strategy for proceduralists performing transradial or transfemoral cardiac catheterization. Further studies on the effectiveness of using a lower fluoroscopy frame rate, real-time radiation monitor, and transradial protection board are needed.

A randomised comparison of monoplane versus biplane fluoroscopy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the RAMBO trial

AIMS

Interventional cardiologists are exposed to substantial occupational ionising radiation. This study sought to investigate differences in radiation exposure in biplane versus monoplane coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

RAMBO (RAdiation exposure in Monoplane versus Biplane cOronary angiography and interventions) was a prospective, randomised, two-arm, single-centre, open-label trial, enrolling a total of 430 patients undergoing coronary angiography. Patients were randomly assigned to biplane or monoplane imaging. The primary efficacy measure, the operator radiation dose at the level of the left arm as measured by a wearable electronic dosimeter, was significantly higher in the biplane as compared to the monoplane group (4 [1-13] µSv vs 2 [0-6.8] µSv, p<0.001). The dose area product was 11,955 (7,095-18,246) mGy*cm2 and 8,349 (5,851-14,159) mGy*cm2 in the biplane and the monoplane groups, respectively (p<0.001). While fluoroscopy time did not differ between the groups (p=0.89), the amount of contrast medium was lower with biplane as compared with monoplane imaging (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Biplane imaging for coronary angiography and PCI is related to an increased radiation exposure for the interventional cardiologist as compared with monoplane imaging. Monoplane imaging should be considered for advanced radioprotection in cardiac catheterisation, with biplane imaging used for selected cases only.

Effectiveness of additional X-ray protection devices in reducing scattered radiation in radial intervention: the ESPRESSO randomised trial

AIMS

We aimed to examine the impact of three different radiation protection devices in a real-world setting of radial artery catheterisation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In an all-comer randomised trial, consecutive coronary radial diagnostic and intervention procedures were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to shield-only protection (shield group), shield and overlapping 0.5 mm Pb panel curtain (shield+curtain group) or shield, curtain and additional 75x40 cm, 0.5 mm Pb drape placed across the waist of the patient (shield+curtain+drape group). A total of 614 radial procedures were randomised (n=193 shield, n=220 shield+curtain, n=201 shield+curtain+drape). There were no differences among the groups in patient or procedural characteristics. The primary endpoint (relative exposure ratio between the operators' exposure in μSv and the patient's exposure, dose area product in cGy·cm2) was significantly lower in the shield+curtain+drape group for both the first operator (20% reduction vs shield, 16% vs shield+curtain, p=0.025) and the assistant (39% reduction vs shield, 25% vs shield+curtain, p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an additional drape reduced the radiation exposure of both the first operator and the second operator during routine radial procedures; a shield-attached curtain alone was only partially effective. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03634657

Effectiveness of a radiation protective device for anesthesiologists and transesophageal echocardiography operators in structural heart disease interventions

In structural heart disease (SHD) interventions, the exposure of staff other than the first operator such as anesthesiologists and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) operators to the radiation can also pose the risks of cancer and cataracts in the long term. This study was conducted to test our new radiation protective device (RPD) for anesthesiologists and TEE operators in SHD interventions. The RPD, which consists of a head side shield and a cradle shield, was mounted on a 0.25 mm Pb-equivalent unleaded radiation protection sheet on a self-made J-shaped acrylic table, and it was placed on the head side and cradle on the operating table. A CT human body phantom was placed on the operating table, and the C-arm was set in five directions: posteroanterior, right anterior oblique 30°, left anterior oblique 30°, caudal 30°, and cranial 30°. The ambient dose equivalent rate at the usual positions of the anesthesiologist and TEE operator were measured under a fluoroscopic sequence with and without the RPD, and the dose reduction rate was obtained. The height of each measurement point was set to 100, 130 or 160 cm. The reduction rates at the positions of the anesthesiologist and the TEE operator were 82.6-86.4% and 77.9-89.5% at the height of 100 cm, 48.5-68.4% and 83.3-91.0% at 130 cm, and 23.6-62.9% and 72.9-86.1% at 160 cm, respectively. The newly developed RPD can thus effectively reduce the radiation exposure of anesthesiologists and TEE operators during SHD interventions.

Scatter radiation reduction with a radiation-absorbing pad in interventional radiology examinations

PURPOSE

Radiation-absorbing pads are an additional possibility to reduce scattered radiation at its source. The goal of this study is to investigate the efficacy of a new reusable radiation-absorbing pad at its origin in an experimental setup.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All measurements were carried out using a clinical angiography system with a standardized fluoroscopy protocol, different C-arm angulations and an anthropomorphic torso phantom as a scattering body. An ionization chamber was used to measure the radiation exposure at five different heights of a simulated operator during a simulated transfemoral angiography intervention. Measurements were carried out with and without radiation-absorbing pads with lead equivalents of 0.25 and 0.5 mm placed onto the scattering body. For all measurements a mobile acrylic shield and an under-table lead curtain was used.

RESULTS

At all operator heights from 100 to 165 cm a significant radiation dose reduction of up to 80.6 % (p < 0.01) using the radiation-absorbing pad was measured, when compared to no radiation-absorbing pad. At the height of 165 cm the radiation-absorbing pad with a lead equivalence of 0.5 mm showed a significant radiation dose reduction (51.4 %, p < 0.01) in comparison to a lead equivalence of 0.25 mm.

CONCLUSION

The addition of a radiation-absorbing pad to the standard protection means results in a significant dose reduction for the operator, particularly for upper body parts.

Effectiveness of additional X-ray protection devices in reducing Scattered radiation in radial interventions: protocol of the ESPRESSO randomised trial

BACKGROUND

A number of devices have been developed to minimise operator radiation exposure in the setting of cardiac catheterisation. The effectiveness of these devices has traditionally been explored in transfemoral coronary procedures; however, less is known for the transradial approach. We set out to examine the impact of three different radiation protection devices in a real-world setting.

METHODS AND DESIGN

Consecutive coronary diagnostic and intervention procedures are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to a shield-only protection (shield group), shield and overlapping 0.5 mm Pb panel curtain (curtain group) or shield, curtain and additional 75×40 cm, 0.5 mm Pb drape placed across the waist of the patient (drape group).The primary outcome is the difference in relative exposure of the primary operator among groups. Relative exposure is defined as the ratio between operator's exposure (E in μSv) and patient exposure (dose area product in cGy·cm²).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol complies with good clinical practice and the ethical principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the local ethics committee. The results of the trial will be published as original article(s) in medical journals and/or as presentation at congresses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03634657.