Ashraf Alazzoni1, Chris L Gordon1, Jaffer Syed1, Madhu K Natarajan1, Michael Rokoss1, Jon-David Schwalm1, Shamir R Mehta1, Tej Sheth1, Nicholas Valettas1, James Velianou1, Shaheen Pandie1, Darar Al Khdair1, Michael Tsang1, Brandi Meeks1, Kiersten Colbran1, Ed Waller1, Shun Fu Lee1, Tamara Marsden1, Sanjit S Jolly2. 1. From the Department of Medicine and the Population Health Research Institute (PHRI), McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (A.A., C.L.G., J.S., M.K.N., M.R., J.-D.S., S.R.M., T.S., N.V., J.V., S.P., D.A.K., M.T., B.M., K.C., S.F.L., T.M., S.S.J.); and Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, Institute of Technology, University of Ontario, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada (E.W.). 2. From the Department of Medicine and the Population Health Research Institute (PHRI), McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (A.A., C.L.G., J.S., M.K.N., M.R., J.-D.S., S.R.M., T.S., N.V., J.V., S.P., D.A.K., M.T., B.M., K.C., S.F.L., T.M., S.S.J.); and Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, Institute of Technology, University of Ontario, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada (E.W.). sanjit.jolly@phri.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists receive one of the highest levels of annual occupational radiation exposure. Further measures to protect healthcare workers are needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the efficacy of a pelvic lead shield and a novel surgical cap in reducing operators' radiation exposure. Patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=230) were randomized to have their procedure with or without a lead shield (Ultraray Medical, Oakville, Canada) placed over the patient. During all procedures, operators wore the No Brainer surgical cap (Worldwide Innovations and Technology, Kansas City, KS) designed to protect the head from radiation exposure. The coprimary outcomes for the lead shield comparison were (1) operator dose (µSv) and (2) operator dose indexed for air kerma (µSv/mGy). For the cap comparison, the primary outcome was the difference between total radiation dose (µSv; internal and external to cap). The lead shield use resulted in a 76% reduction in operator dose (mean dose, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-4.71 µSv lead shield group versus 12.57; 95% CI, 8.14-19.40 µSv control group; P<0.001). The mean dose indexed for air kerma was reduced by 72% (0.004; 95% CI, 0.003-0.005 µSv/mGy lead shield group versus 0.015; 95% CI, 0.012-0.019 µSv/mGy control group; P<0.001). The cap use resulted in a significant reduction in operator head radiation exposure (mean left temporal difference [external-internal] radiation dose was 4.79 [95% CI, 3.30-6.68] µSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a pelvic lead shield and the cap reduced significantly the operator radiation exposure and can be easily incorporated into clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02128035.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists receive one of the highest levels of annual occupational radiation exposure. Further measures to protect healthcare workers are needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the efficacy of a pelvic lead shield and a novel surgical cap in reducing operators' radiation exposure. Patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=230) were randomized to have their procedure with or without a lead shield (Ultraray Medical, Oakville, Canada) placed over the patient. During all procedures, operators wore the No Brainer surgical cap (Worldwide Innovations and Technology, Kansas City, KS) designed to protect the head from radiation exposure. The coprimary outcomes for the lead shield comparison were (1) operator dose (µSv) and (2) operator dose indexed for air kerma (µSv/mGy). For the cap comparison, the primary outcome was the difference between total radiation dose (µSv; internal and external to cap). The lead shield use resulted in a 76% reduction in operator dose (mean dose, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-4.71 µSv lead shield group versus 12.57; 95% CI, 8.14-19.40 µSv control group; P<0.001). The mean dose indexed for air kerma was reduced by 72% (0.004; 95% CI, 0.003-0.005 µSv/mGy lead shield group versus 0.015; 95% CI, 0.012-0.019 µSv/mGy control group; P<0.001). The cap use resulted in a significant reduction in operator head radiation exposure (mean left temporal difference [external-internal] radiation dose was 4.79 [95% CI, 3.30-6.68] µSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a pelvic lead shield and the cap reduced significantly the operator radiation exposure and can be easily incorporated into clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02128035.
Authors: James R Roy; Philip Sun; Glenn Ison; Ananth M Prasan; Tom Ford; Andrew Hopkins; David R Ramsay; James C Weaver Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: N Patrick Mayr; Gunther Wiesner; Angela Kretschmer; Johannes Brönner; Herbert Hoedlmoser; Oliver Husser; Albert M Kasel; Rüdiger Lange; Peter Tassani-Prell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christiane Behr-Meenen; Heiner von Boetticher; Jan Felix Kersten; Albert Nienhaus Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 3.390