Effectiveness of additional X-ray protection devices in reducing scattered radiation in radial intervention: the ESPRESSO randomised trial

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.

Effect of an optimized X-ray blanket design on operator radiation dose in cardiac catheterization based on real-world angiography

Background

There is increasing concern and focus in the interventional cardiology community on potential long term health issues related to radiation exposure and heavy wearable protection. Optimized shielding measures may reduce operator dose to levels where lighter radioprotective garments can safely be used, or even omitted. X-ray blankets (XRB) are commercially available but suffer from small size and lack of stability. A larger XRB may reduce operator dose but could hamper vascular access and visualization. The aim of this study is to assess shielding effect of an optimized XRB during cardiac catheterization and estimate the potential reduction in annual operator dose based on DICOM Radiation Dose Structured Report (RDSR) data reflecting everyday clinical practice.

Methods

Data accumulated from 7681 procedures over three years in our RDSR repository was used to identify projection angles and radiation doses during cardiac catheterization. Using an anthropomorphic phantom and a scatter radiation detector, radiation dose to the operator (mSv) and patient (dose area product—DAP) was measured for each angiographic projection for three different shielding setups. Relative operator dose (mSv/DAP) was calculated and multiplied by DAP per projection to estimate effect on operator dose.

Results

Adding an optimized XRB to a standard shielding setup comprising a table- and ceiling-mounted shield resulted in a 94.9% reduction in estimated operator dose. The largest shielding effect was observed in left and cranial projections where the ceiling-mounted shield offered less protection.

Conclusions

An optimized XRB is a simple shielding measure that has the potential to reduce operator dose.

Radiation protection for the interventional cardiologist: Practical approach and innovations

Use of ionizing radiation during cardiac catheterization interventions adversely impacts both the patients and medical staff. In recent years, radiation dose in cardiac catheterization interventions has become a topic of increasing interest in interventional cardiology and there is a strong interest in reducing radiation exposure during the procedures. This review presents the current status of radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and summarizes a practical approach for radiation dose management for minimizing radiation exposure. This review also presents recent innovations that have clinical potential for reducing radiation during cardiac interventions.

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.