PROMOTING FLUOROSCOPIC PERSONAL RADIATION PROTECTION EQUIPMENT: UNFAMILIARITY, FACTS AND FEARS

Operator Intracranial Dose Protection During Fluoroscopic-Guided Interventions

PURPOSE

We utilized an anthropomorphic model made with a human skull to determine how different personal protective equipment influence operator intracranial radiation absorbed dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A custom anthropomorphic phantom made with a human skull coated with polyurethane rubber, mimicking superficial tissues, and was mounted onto a plastic thorax. To simulate scatter, an acrylic plastic scatter phantom was placed onto the fluoroscopic table with a 1.5 mm lead apron on top. Two Radcal radiation detectors were utilized; one inside of the skull and a second outside. Fluoroscopic exposures were performed with and without radiation protective equipment in AP, 45-degree RAO, and 45-degree LAO projections.

RESULTS

The skull and soft tissues reduce intracranial radiation by 76% when compared to radiation outside the skull. LAO (308.95 μSv/min) and RAO projections (96.47μSv/min) result in significantly higher radiation exposure to the primary operator when compared to an AP projection (54 μSv/min). All tested radiation protection equipment demonstrated various reduction in intracranial radiation when compared to no protection. The hood (68% reduction in AP, 91% LAO, and 43% in RAO), full cover (53% reduction in AP, 76% in LAO, and 54% in RAO), and open top with ear coverage (43% reduction in AP, 77% reduction in LAO, and 22% in RAO) demonstrated the most reduction in intracranial radiation when compared to the control.

CONCLUSION

All tested equipment provided various degrees of additional intracranial protection. The skull and soft tissues attenuate a portion of intracranial radiation.

AN INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY INVESTIGATION: PATIENT EXPOSURE TO RADIATION AND INTER-OPERATOR VARIABILITY IN AN IRISH SETTING

AIM

To evaluate patient radiation exposure for Diagnostic Coronary Angiography (DCA) and Percutaneous Cardiac Intervention (PCI) performed by different operators.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective (n = 160) and prospective (n = 62) data for DCA (n = 179) and PCI (n = 43) examinations performed by interventional cardiologists (n = 3) using the same imaging equipment were reviewed. The operator with consistently low diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) was interviewed for their personal perceptions upon operator training. Retrospective Median [IQR] DAP was 18.8 [11.8-31.6] and 50.7 [35.3-85.6] Gy.cm2 for DCA and PCI, respectively. Prospective Median [IQR] DAP for DCA and PCI was 7.9 [5.2-10.6] and 15.9 [10.0-17.7] Gy.cm2, respectively. DRLs were within Irish and European DRLs; however, significant inter-operator variability (p < .001) was identified.

CONCLUSION

Radiation exposure in Interventional cardiology is highly operator dependent; further research is warranted in standardization of operator training with evolving technologies.

Usefulness of Pelvic Radiation Protection Shields During Transfemoral Procedures-Operator and Patient Considerations

Interventional cardiologists are increasingly exposed to radiation-induced hazards. The MAVIG shield is a lead-free drape and the RADPAD is a sterile, disposable, and lead-free shield, placed on the patient with the aim to minimize operator-received scatter radiation. The objective of the trial was to examine their efficacy in a real-world situation. We randomized 125 patients who underwent coronary procedures from the right femoral artery into 3 groups: Control group (n = 48 [39%]) without additional protection, MAVIG lead shield (n = 38 [30%]) and RADPAD shield (n = 39 [31%]). Multiple radiation dosimeters were used in each case. All 3 groups were with similar baseline and procedural characteristics. Fluoroscopy time and number of views were similar in all 3 study groups. Compared with the standard (no shield) protection [3.5 ± 5.57 mSv], the scatter radiation was reduced by a factor of 5 for the MAVIG group [0.46 ± 1.6 mSv and p = 0.001] and a factor of 4 for the RADPAD group [1.16 ± 2.29 mSv and p = 0.01]. The physician's radiation decreased with the 2 shields, but only the MAVIG shield showed statistically significant lower radiation: 0.49 ± 0.42 mSv in the standard group versus 0.26 ± 0.3 mSv in the MAVIG and 0.35 ± 0.44 mSv in the RADPAD (p = 0.135 for RADPAD and p = 0.005 for MAVIG). Patient's exposure was statistically similar to the control group. Although numerically there was an increase in radiation with the RADPAD and decrease with the MAVIG.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no statistically increase in patient radiation while the operator's radiation exposure was reduced. Decreasing scatter radiation can be done effectively using simple measurements and is of major importance.