Efficacy of RADPAD protection drape in reducing radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory-First Indian study

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.

Intraoperative Fluoroscopy Radiation Using OEC 9900 Elite C-arm: Risk and Method for Decreasing Exposure

ABSTRACT

The use of intraoperative fluoroscopy in surgery produces scattered radiation that can expose all operating room personnel to measurable and, in some cases, substantial radiation doses. The goal of this work is to assess and document potential radiation doses to various staff positions in a simulated standard operating room environment. Adult-sized mannequins wearing standard lead protective aprons were placed at seven positions around large and small BMI cadavers. Doses were recorded in real time at thyroid level with Bluetooth-enabled dosimeters for a variety of fluoroscope settings and imaging views. A total of 320 images were acquired, resulting in 2,240 dosimeter readings from the seven mannequins. Doses were compared to cumulative air kerma (CAK) calculations provided by the fluoroscope. There was a strong correlation between the CAK and the recorded scattered radiation doses ( P < 0.001). Radiation doses could be reduced by manipulating C-arm manual technique settings [e.g., turning off the automatic exposure control (AEC) and using pulse (PULSE) or low dose (LD) settings]. Staff position and patient size also affected the recorded doses. The highest radiation doses were recorded across all settings for the mannequin positioned immediately adjacent to the C-arm x-ray tube. The larger BMI cadaver generated greater scattered radiation than the smaller BMI cadaver for all views and settings. This work provides suggestions for reducing exposure to operating room personnel beyond standard techniques of reducing beam-on time, increasing the distance from the radiation source, and use of shielding. Simple changes in C-arm settings (turning AEC off, avoiding DS setting, use of PULSE or LD settings) can markedly reduce dose to staff.

Reduction of Occupational Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Artery Disease Using Radiation Absorbing Drapes

BACKGROUND

A chronic exposure to low dose radiation, as encountered in endovascular procedures, may impact the health of surgeons and radiologists over a timespan of several months to a lifetime. This study evaluates the feasibility and efficacy of a radiation absorbing sterile drape (RADPAD) to reduce operator exposure during the endovascular treatment of obstructive peripheral artery disease (PAD).

METHODS

Between February 2016 and September 2017, patients with PAD who received percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, remote endarterectomy, or a combination thereof were included in this nonrandomized study. Patients were equally divided over a study cohort (with RADPAD) and a control cohort (without RADPAD). The unshielded body dose (E) of the staff was measured via electronic dosimeters placed at a chest height of the first operator (FO), second operator (SO), and sterile nurse (SN). A virtual maximum operator (MO) dose was constructed, yielding the highest dose per fluoroscopy run for either of the operators. Simultaneously, the dose area product (DAP) and C-arm settings for each fluoroscopy run were extracted. Staff exposures of the study cohort and control cohort were compared in terms of relative exposure (E/DAP). A secondary analysis involved an analysis of the individual fluoroscopy runs using a multivariate generalized linear mixed effect model.

RESULTS

In total, 49 patients were included in this study. The use of RADPAD was technically feasible. Significant reductions of relative exposure were observed when comparing the study cohort with the control cohort. The relative exposure of the FO was reduced with 66.5% (1.82 vs. 0.61 μSv/Gycm², P < 0.001), the relative exposure of the SO with 68.3% (0.55 vs. 0.17 μSv/Gycm², P = 0.02), and the relative exposure of the MO with 65.8% (2.06 vs. 0.71 μSv/Gycm², P < 0.001). Dose levels of SN were too low to draw conclusions under the current sample size. The multivariate generalized linear mixed effect model showed a significant correlation between absolute exposure of the MO and the use of the RADPAD (odds: 0.51, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Usage of a radiation absorbing drape (RADPAD) during endovascular treatment of PAD results in statistically significant reduction in a relative operator dose while presenting no drawbacks. The use of these drapes is advised in future peripheral endovascular procedures.

Impact of the incorrect use of lead drapes on staff and patient doses in interventional radiology

To evaluate the usefulness of commercially available scatter reduction drapes in mitigating staff exposure in interventional radiology and the potential harmful effects of drape malpositioning in terms of exposure levels to both patients and staff. An anthropomorphic phantom was irradiated on an angiography device under three scenarios: no drape and correct and incorrect drape positioning. Different levels of incorrect drape positioning relative to the field-of-view (FOV) were evaluated: slight, mild and severe. Real-time dosimeter systems (positioned on the operator's eye, chest and thyroid) were used to evaluate accumulative doses and dose rates. Different obstruction levels were evaluated and compared to the observer's perception. Additionally, patient exposure was evaluated for all scenarios using a dose area product (DAP). Up to a mild obstruction, by using the drape a dose reduction of up to 86% was obtained while a severe obstruction produced a 1000% increase in exposure, respectively for all dosimeter positions compared to the use of no drape. A similar order of magnitude was observed for patient exposure. Good agreement was obtained for the observer perception of the FOV obstruction up to 25% of the FOV; for larger obstructions, an overestimate of the obstruction was observed. Patient lead drapes can reduce staff doses in interventional radiology procedures even when mildly malpositioned and obscuring the FOV. Special attention to protective drape positioning is necessary, since the severe obstruction of the FOV results in a large increase in both operator and patient exposure.

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.

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

Vascular access and radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary procedures

In the cardiology community, the use of transradial access for percutaneous coronary procedures is progressively increasing all around the world overtaking the use of transfemoral access. The advantages of the transradial access are based on a significant reduction in bleeding and vascular events compared to the femoral access and on a reduction in mortality in the setting of acute coronary syndromes. However, in recent years a slight but significant increase in radiation exposure for patients and operators associated with the radial approach has been detected, increasing concerns about possible long term increased stochastic risk. In particular interventional cardiologists are among physicians performing interventional procedures using X-rays, those exposed to the highest radiation dose during their activity and this exposure is not without possible long-term clinical consequences in term of deterministic and stochastic effects. All the operators should be aware of these risks and manage to reduce their radiation exposure. In this review we analysed the differences in term of radiation exposure comparing the radial and the femoral access for percutaneous coronary procedures. Then, we discussed the possible clinical consequences of these differences and finally we showed the available tools aimed to reduce the operator radiation exposure. In particular the use of adjunctive protective drapes placed on the patient might reduce operator radiation exposure in up to 81% of the dose.

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.