Efficiency of the RADPAD Surgical Cap in Reducing Brain Exposure During Pacemaker and Defibrillator Implantation

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.

Lead Cap Use in Interventional Cardiology: Time to Protect Our Head in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory?

Background: Radiation exposure is an occupational hazard for interventional cardiologists and cardiac catheterisation laboratory staff that can manifest with serious long-term health consequences. Personal protective equipment, including lead jackets and glasses, is common, but the use of radiation protective lead caps is inconsistent. Methods: A systematic review qualitative assessment of five observational studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines protocol was performed. Results: It was concluded that lead caps significantly reduce radiation exposure to the head, even when a ceiling-mounted lead shield was present. Conclusion: Although newer protective systems are being studied and introduced, tools, such as lead caps, need to be strongly considered and employed in the catheterisation laboratory as mainstay personal protective equipment.

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.

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.

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.

Interventional cardiology and X-ray exposure of the head: overview of clinical evidence and practical implications

Interventional cardiologists are significantly exposed to X- rays and no dose of radiation may be considered well tolerated or harmless. Leaded aprons protect the trunk and the thyroid gland, leaded glasses protect the eyes. The operator's legs, arms, neck and head are, instead, not fully protected. In fact, the operator's brain remains the closest part to the primary X-ray beam and scatter in most interventional procedures and specifically the physician's front head is the most exposed region during device implantation performed at the patient's side. After the initial description of cases of brain and neck tumours, additional reports on head and neck malignancies have been published. Although a direct link between operator radiation exposure and brain cancer has not been established, these reports have heightened awareness of a potential association. The use of lead-based cranial dedicated shields may help reduce operator exposure but upward scattered radiation, weight and poor tolerability have raised concerns and hindered widespread acceptance. The purpose of this review is to describe current knowledge on occupational X-ray exposure of interventional cardiologists, with a special focus on the potential risks for the head and neck and efficacy of available protection devices.

Disposable, Lightweight Shield Decreases Operator Eye and Brain Radiation Dose When Attached to Safety Eyewear During Fluoroscopically-Guided-Interventions

OBJECTIVE

Long-term radiation exposure from fluoroscopically-guided-interventions (FGIs) can cause cataracts and brain tumors in the operator. We have previously demonstrated that leaded eyewear does not decrease operator eye dose unless lead shielding is added to the lateral and inferior portions. Therefore, we developed a disposable, lightweight, lead-equivalent shield that can be attached to the operator's eyewear, conforming around the face and adhering to the surgical mask. This study evaluates the efficacy of our new prototype in lowering operator brain and eye dose when added to both leaded and non-leaded eyewear.

METHODS

The attenuating efficacy of leaded eyewear alone, leaded eyewear + prototype and non-leaded eyewear + prototype were compared to no eyewear protection in both a simulated setting and clinical practice. In the simulation, optically stimulated, luminescent nanoDot detectors (Landauer, Glenwood, II) were placed inside the ocular, temporal lobe, and midbrain spaces of a head phantom (ATOM model-701: CIRS, Norfolk, VA). The phantom was positioned to represent a primary operator performing right femoral access. Fluorography was performed on a plastic scatter phantom at 80kVp for an exposure of 3 Gy RAK. In the clinical setting, nanoDots were placed below the operator's eye both inside and outside the prototype during FGIs. Median and interquartile ranges were calculated for the dose at each nanoDot location for both the phantom and clinical study, with average dose reduction also reported.

RESULTS

Wearing standard leaded eyewear alone did not decrease operator ocular or brain dose. In the phantom experiment, the leaded glasses + prototype reduced dose to the lens, temporal lobe and midbrain by 83% (p<0.001), 78% (p<0.001), and 75% (p<0.001), respectively. The non-leaded glasses + prototype also reduced dose to the lens, temporal lobe and midbrain by 85% (p<0.001), 81% (p<0.001), and 71% (p<0.001). In the clinical setting, 15 FGIs were included, with median RAK of 98.4 mGy. Our prototype led to an average operator eye dose reduction of 89% (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Attaching our prototype to both leaded and non-leaded glasses significantly decreased eye and brain radiation dose to the operator. This face shield attachment provides meaningful radiation protection and should be considered as either a replacement or adjunct to routine eyewear.