Multiple Cutaneous Cancers in an Interventional Cardiologist: Predominance in Unprotected Skin Nearest the Radiation Source

Comprehensive radiation shield minimizes operator radiation exposure in coronary and structural heart procedures

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy of a novel comprehensive shield designed to minimize radiation exposure (RE) to Physicians performing coronary and structural heart procedures.

BACKGROUND

The Protego™ radiation shielding system (Image Diagnostics Inc., Fitchburg, Ma) is designed to provide comprehensive protection from RE and has been State certified sufficient to allow operators to perform procedures without orthopedically burdensome lead aprons.

METHODS

This single center two-group cohort study assessed the efficacy of this shield in a large number of cardiac procedures (coronary and structural), comparing operator RE compared to standard protection methods (personal lead apparel and "drop down" shield).

RESULTS

The Protego™ system reduced operator RE by 99 % compared to Standard Protection. RE was significantly lower at both "Head" level by thyroid median dose 0.0 (0.0, 0,0) vs 5.7 (2.9, 8.2) μSv (p < 0.001), as well as waist dose 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) vs 10.0 (5.0, 16.6) μSv (p < 0.001). "Zero" Total RE was documented by Raysafe™ in 64 % (n = 32) of TAVR cases and 73.2 % (n = 183) of the coronary cases utilizing Protego™. In contrast, standard protection did not achieve "Zero" exposure in a single case. These dramatic differences in RE were achieved despite higher fluoroscopy times in the Protego™ arm (11.9 ± 8.6 vs 14.3 ± 12.5 min, p = 0.015). Per case procedural exposure measured by Dose Area Product was higher in the Protego™ group compared to standard protection (115.4 ± 139.2 vs 74.9 ± 69.3, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The Protego™ shield provides total body RE protection for operators performing both coronary and structural heart procedures. This shield allows procedural performance without the need for personal lead aprons and has potential to reduce catheterization laboratory occupational health hazards.

A dual-centre study on the radioprotective effect of a novel X-ray protection device during coronary intervention

AIM

To investigate the shielding efficiency of a novel X-ray protection device (NPD) compared with the traditional lead clothing (TLC) during coronary intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was performed prospectively in two centres. A total of 200 coronary interventions were included and assigned equally into the NPD or TLC group. The NPD is a floor-standing X-ray protection device, which mainly composes of a barrel-like frame and two layers of lead rubber. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were adopted to detect the cumulative absorbed doses, and were attached outside the NPD or TLC or body of the first operator at four different height levels in four directions during the procedure.

RESULTS

The cumulative doses outside the NPD were comparable to that of the TLC (2,398.33 ± 2,341.64 versus 1,624.09 ± 1,732.20 μSv, p=0.366), and the cumulative doses inside the NPD were significantly lower than those inside the TLC (40 ± 0 versus 732.28 ± 919.83 μSv, p<0.001). As the TLC did not cover the calf segment of the operator, the area at 50 cm height from the floor in the TLC group was unshielded. The shielding efficiency of NPD was significantly higher than that of the TLC (98.2 ± 0.63% versus 52.11 ± 38.97%, p=0.021).

CONCLUSION

The NPD has a significantly higher shielding efficacy than that of the TLC, in particular, it protects the operators' lower limb, liberates their lower body from wearing heavy lead apron, and may consequently reduce the radiation or body-load associated complications.

Comprehensive Radiation Shield Minimizes Operator Radiation Exposure and Obviates Need for Lead Aprons

Background

The catheterization laboratory predisposes to occupational health hazards. Chronic radiation exposure (RE) direct injuries include a predilection to cataracts and concerns for cancers. Indirectly adverse effects underly the prevalence of orthopedic maladies in interventionists, linked to the burden of mandatory protective lead aprons. A novel comprehensive shielding system (Protego, Image Diagnostics Inc) has been validated in early studies to provide excellent radiation protection. The system is designed to reduce operator RE sufficient to eliminate the need for personal lead aprons. Recent system refinements offer potentially even greater degrees of protection. This clinical study evaluated the efficacy of this system.

Methods

This single-center 2-group cohort study compared physician operator RE utilizing the latest iteration of the Protego shield (n = 25 cases) or standard protection (personal leaded apparel and drop-down shield, n = 25 cases) during routine cardiac catheterization procedures. RE at both thyroid and waist levels were measured with a real-time dosimetry system (Raysafe) and calculated on a mean per case basis at both thyroid and waist levels. Additional parameters collected included procedure type, access site, per case fluoroscopy time, and patient factors including body mass index. Between-group comparisons were conducted to evaluate RE by group and measurement sites.

Results

Protection with Protego was superior to standard methods. Protego showed markedly lower RE at both the thyroid level (0.36 ± 0.86 vs 58.5 ± 50.2 μSv; P < .001) and the waist level (0.84 ± 2.99 vs 121.4 ± 171.2 μSv; P < .001. "Zero" total RE was documented in 68% (n = 17) of Protego cases; in contrast, standard protection did not achieve "zero" exposure in a single case.

Conclusions

The Protego shield system provides excellent RE protection to the physician operator, achieving "zero" RE in two-thirds of cases. RE was superior to standard protection methods. The magnitude of protection achieves state regulatory standards sufficient to allow operators to perform procedures without orthopedically burdensome lead aprons. This shield system has the potential to reduce occupational health hazards.

A novel comprehensive radiation shielding system eliminates need for personal lead aprons in the catheterization laboratory

OBJECTIVES

This clinical study evaluated the efficacy of a novel radiation shielding system for the cardiac catheterization laboratory designed to provide comprehensive protection that obviates the need for personal lead aprons.

BACKGROUND

Invasive Cardiologists are exposed to occupational health hazards related directly to radiation exposure (RE) and indirectly to the orthopedic burden of wearing only partially protective lead aprons. Innovations to reduce these risks are warranted. A novel comprehensive shielding system (Protego^TM , Image Diagnostics Inc, Fitchburg, Ma) has been validated in pre-clinical studies to provide excellent radiation protection, sufficient for the State of Michigan to certify it for use without need for personal lead aprons.

METHODS

This clinical analysis measured RE to a single Physician operator utilizing the Protego^TM shield (and not wearing personal lead apron) during routine cardiac catheterization procedures (diagnostic and interventional). RE was measured at both thyroid and waist level with a real-time dosimetry system (Raysafe^TM , Billdal, Sweden), calculated on a median per case basis (mrems). Additional parameters collected included procedure type, access site, per case fluoroscopy time, and patient factors including body mass index.

RESULTS

In n=98 cases (25% diagnostic, 75% interventional including 22% chronic total occlusions), median/case RE was 0.4 mrems (thyroid) and 0.2 mrems (waist). RE=0 in 12 cases. In no case did radiation exposure exceed 3.2 mrems.

CONCLUSION

The Protego^TM shield system provides excellent RE protection to the Physician operator, without the need for personal lead aprons and has the potential to reduce catheterization laboratory occupational health hazards.

Comparison of patient and staff temple dose during fluoroscopically guided coronary angiography, implantable cardiac devices, and electrophysiology procedures

There is a paucity of literature comparing patient and staff dose during coronary angiography (CA), implantable cardiac devices, permanent pacemakers (PPM) and electrophysiology (EP) procedures and little noting dose to staff other than cardiologists. This study sought to compare patient and occupational dose during a range of fluoroscopically guided cardiac procedures. Radiation dose levels for the patients (n = 1651), cardiologists (n = 24), scrub (n = 32) and scout nurses (n = 35) were measured in a prospective single-centre study between February 2017 and August 2019. A comparison of dose during CA, device implantation, PPM insertion and EP studies was performed. Three angiographic units were used, with dosimeters worn on the temple of staff. Results indicated that occupational dose during PPM was significantly higher than other procedures. The cardiologist had the highest mean dose during biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillators; levels were approximately five times that of 'normal' pacemaker insertions. Transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) were associated with relatively high mean doses for both staff and patients and had a statistically significant higher (>2 times) mean patient dose area product than all other categories. TAVI workups were also related to higher mean cardiologist and scrub nurse dose. It was observed that the mean scrub nurse dose can exceed that of the cardiologist. The highest mean dose for Scout nurses were recorded during EP studies. Given the significantly higher temple dose associated with PPM insertion, cardiologists should consider utilizing ceiling mounted lead shields, lead glasses and/or skull caps where possible. Efforts should also be made to minimize the use of DSA during TAVI and TAVI workups to reduce cardiologist, nurse and patient dose.