Radiation safety and vascular access: attitudes among cardiologists worldwide

Radiation protection among health care workers: knowledge, attitude, practice, and clinical recommendations: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of health care workers (HCWs) towards radiation protection.

METHODS

In this systematic review study, three international databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus) were searched for related published articles in the English language from 1 January 2000 to 1 February 2020. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Hoy et al. tool.

RESULTS

Out of the 1,848 studies examined, 41 studies that were performed on 11,050 HCWs were included in the final stage. The results indicated that in most studies, more than half (50%) of the participants had average knowledge. Furthermore, 60% of the participants had a positive attitude, but in most studies, they had average practice regarding radiation protection. The most important recommendation for improving KAP among the participants was incorporating radiation protection standards in the student curriculum.

CONCLUSION

Considering the results of the study, further attention should be paid to proper education regarding radiation protection standards and improvement of HCW performance.

Radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory

The trend towards more minimally invasive procedures in the past few decades has resulted in an exponential growth in fluoroscopy-guided catheter-based cardiology procedures. As these techniques are becoming more commonly used and developed, the adverse effects of radiation exposure to the patient, operator, and ancillary staff have been a subject of concern. Although occupational radiation dose limits are being monitored and seldom reached, exposure to chronic, low dose radiation has been shown to have harmful biological effects that are not readily apparent until years after. Given this, it is imperative that reducing radiation dose exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory remains a priority. Staff education and training, radiation dose monitoring, ensuring use of proper personal protective equipment, employment of shields, and various procedural techniques in minimizing radiation must always be diligently employed. Special care and consideration should be extended to pregnant women working in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. This review article presents a practical approach to radiation dose management and discusses best practice recommendations in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

IMPACT OF PELVIC AND RAD-BOARD LEAD SHIELDS ON OPERATOR AND PATIENT RADIATION DOSE IN TRANS-RADIAL CORONARY PROCEDURES

BACKGROUND

Trans-radial approach for cardiac catheterisation procedures has long been associated with high operator and patient radiation dose. The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of pelvic and radial shields on decreasing coronary procedure radiation doses.

METHODS

A total of 418 patients randomly underwent diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac procedures with and without the pelvic and rad-board lead shields during the procedures. The operator and patient doses were then determined by means of a personal dosimeter and dose area product (DAP), respectively.

RESULTS

The shields decreased the operator radiation dose by 40% in coronary angiography (CA) and by 45% during angioplasty (PCI). These results were achieved at the cost of increased patient radiation dose.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic lead shields combined with rad-board shields are highly effective in reducing operator radiation dose in trans-radial approach, but it is only achieved at the cost of increased patient DAP.

Radiation safety education and compliance with safety procedures-The Korea Nurses' Health Study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the current state of radiation safety education and its influence on nurses' compliance with safety procedures.

BACKGROUND

Use of radiation in therapy and diagnosis has prolonged and improved millions of lives, but it presents potential hazards for healthcare professionals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional design.

METHODS

Participants included 1,672 female nurses of childbearing age who had recently been exposed to radiation-emitting generators or radiation. Quantitative data were taken from the Korea Nurses' Health Study, the Korean version of the Nurses' Health Study conducted in the USA. Confounding variables included sociodemographic factors, duration of employment in a department where work involved radiation, hospital's geographical location, bed size and hospital safety climate. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation coefficients and multivariable ordinal logistic regression.

RESULTS

Half (50.3%) of nurses received no safety training, whereas the other half received some safety training as follows: only once (14.4%), irregularly (10.2%) and regularly (25.1%). Of the six radioactive safety compliance questionnaires, 29.4%, 20.2%, 30.7% and 19.7% complied to none, one, two and more than three, respectively. After controlling for confounding variables, relative to that observed with no safety education, irregular education that occurred more than twice (OR = 1.597, CI = 1.177-2.164) and regular education (OR = 2.223, CI = 1.770-2.792) increased the likelihood that nurses would comply with safety procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Low levels of safety education and adherence raise critical concerns regarding nurses' well-being. As routine safety education increases safety adherence, healthcare managers and policymakers should emphasise regular safety education.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Radiation safety education for nurses and their compliance with safety procedures have seldom been discussed in South Korea. However, as nurses' safety is directly related to the quality of patient care, additional safety education should be provided for hospital nurses to minimise their occupational exposure to harmful radioactive substances in clinical settings.

Physician and Patient Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Procedures

OPINION STATEMENT

Endovascular procedures expose both patients and physicians to fluoroscopic ionizing radiation that carries a dose-dependent risk of acute toxicity and a small, but demonstrable, long-term risk of malignancy due to resultant genetic mutations. Exposure doses vary widely based upon patient-related factors including body size and anatomic complexity, operator technique, procedure type (diagnostic vs. therapeutic), vascular bed imaged, and imaging equipment employed. Effective dosage may vary as much as 200-fold for physicians and 20-fold for patients depending upon the procedure: for example, complex aortic interventions with branched graft devices may convey mean effective doses of more than 0.4 mSv for physicians and 100 mSv for patients, whereas distal, small-vessel angiography may entail mean effective doses of less than 0.002 mSv for physicians and 5 mSv for patients. Particular attention is given to physicians' ocular exposure, which may cause cataract development, and to hand exposure, which is significantly higher than total body exposure when operators work near the x-ray beam. Given the risks of radiation exposure, numerous strategies have been developed to reduce both physician and patient doses. These measures include physician education about dose-reducing imaging techniques, development of low-dose imaging equipment, introduction of new radiation shielding drapes and caps, and real-time dose monitoring. Here, we review physician and patient effective doses of radiation by procedure type as reported in the literature and present recent data regarding dose-reduction strategies.

Current practice of transradial approach for coronary procedures: A survey by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) and the Italian Radial Club

BACKGROUND

Transradial approach (TRA) for percutaneous coronary procedures is associated with improved patient outcome and is being increasingly adopted worldwide. We surveyed Italian interventional cardiologists in order to take a snapshot of the current practice of TRA.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was emailed to all members of the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology.

RESULTS

The survey was taken by 508 respondents. Cardiogenic shock and chronic total occlusions represented the principal limitations to TRA. Right TRA was the default approach for 81% of respondents. Both diagnostic and interventional procedures were routinely performed through 6 Fr sheaths (83% and 93%, respectively); dedicated TRA curves were used in 11% of diagnostic and in about 3% of interventional procedures. Almost 70% of the operators did not assess dual hand circulation. In case of crossover, the contralateral radial artery was the preferred site (57%). Radial artery hemostasis was mostly achieved by pneumatic bracelet (64%) and patency of the radial artery during hemostasis was ensured in 60% of cases. Pre-discharge patency of the radial artery was routinely assessed by almost 60% of respondents. For diagnostic procedures, adequate heparin anticoagulation (5000IU) was only given by 45% of operators. Most respondents believed that TRA is associated with greater radiation exposure for both the patient (82%) and the operator (98%) as compared to transfemoral approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides contemporary data about the adoption of TRA in Italy and gives interesting insights about several technical and clinical issues related to the practice of this vascular approach for coronary procedures.

Rebirth of left radial artery access: could this be the 'right' radial artery?

Cardiac catheterization has several risks, notably which include bleeding, stroke and death. The transradial (TR) approach to catheterization is associated with a lower bleeding risk. The right radial approach is the default method in most laboratories and the left radial artery (LRA) serves as the bail-out approach. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of transfemoral and TR access routes. The authors envisage an increased adoption of the LRA approach, due to the anatomical superiority and ease of catheter engagement afforded by this approach. The authors discuss ways to increase operator ease for LRA in the laboratory and propose a novel way to improve LRA work-flow.