Literature DB >> 28280789

Reduction in operator radiation exposure during transradial coronary procedures using a simple lead rectangle.

Azriel B Osherov1, Sharon Bruoha1, Avishag Laish Farkash1, Gideon Paul2, Ian Orlov1, Amos Katz1, Jamal Jafari1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces procedural complications however, there are concerns regarding the potential for increased exposure to ionizing radiation to the primary operator. We evaluated the efficacy of a lead-attenuator in reducing radiation exposure during transradial PCI. METHODS AND
RESULTS: This was a non-randomized, prospective, observational study in which 52 consecutive patients were assigned to either standard operator protection (n = 26) or the addition of the lead attenuator across their abdomen/pelvis (n = 26). In the attenuator group patients were relatively older with a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (67.9 vs 58.7 p = 0.0292 and 12% vs 7.6% p < 0.001 respectively). Despite similar average fluoroscopy times (12.3 ± 9.8 min vs. 9.3 ± 5.4 min, p = 0.175) and average examination doses (111866 ± 80790 vs. 91,268 ± 47916 Gycm2, p = 0.2688), the total radiation exposure to the operator, at the thyroid level, was significantly lower when the lead-attenuator was utilized (20.2% p < 0.0001) as compared to the control group. Amongst the 26 patients assigned to the lead-attenuator, there was a significant reduction in measured radiation of 94.5% (p < 0.0001), above as compared to underneath the lead attenuator.
CONCLUSIONS: Additional protection with the use of a lead rectangle-attenuator significantly lowered radiation exposure to the primary operator, which may confer long-term benefits in reducing radiation-induced injury. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first paper to show that a simple lead attenuator almost completely reduced the scattered radiation at very close proximity to the patient and should be considered as part of the standard equipment within catheterization laboratories.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiology; Health sciences; Medical imaging; Medicine

Year:  2017        PMID: 28280789      PMCID: PMC5328903          DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heliyon        ISSN: 2405-8440


  18 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis of ten trials on the effectiveness of the radial versus the femoral approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Dominique Joyal; Olivier F Bertrand; Stéphane Rinfret; Avi Shimony; Mark J Eisenberg
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 2.778

2.  Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes.

Authors:  Camille Brasselet; Thierry Blanpain; Sophie Tassan-Mangina; Alain Deschildre; Sébastien Duval; Fabien Vitry; Nathalie Gaillot-Petit; Jean Paul Clément; Damien Metz
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2007-11-13       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 3.  ACC expert consensus document. Radiation safety in the practice of cardiology. American College of Cardiology.

Authors:  M C Limacher; P S Douglas; G Germano; W K Laskey; B D Lindsay; M H McKetty; M E Moore; J K Park; F M Prigent; M N Walsh
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1998-03-15       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Bleeding avoidance strategies. Consensus and controversy.

Authors:  Harold L Dauerman; Sunil V Rao; Frederic S Resnic; Robert J Applegate
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Reduction of operator radiation dose by a pelvic lead shield during cardiac catheterization by radial access: comparison with femoral access.

Authors:  Helmut W Lange; Heiner von Boetticher
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 11.195

6.  Reduction of scatter radiation during transradial percutaneous coronary angiography: a randomized trial using a lead-free radiation shield.

Authors:  Luigi Politi; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Luca Nocetti; Tiziana Costi; Daniel Monopoli; Rosario Rossi; Fabio Sgura; Maria Grazia Modena; Giuseppe M Sangiorgi
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Reduction in operator radiation exposure during transradial catheterization and intervention using a simple lead drape.

Authors:  Ali F Iqtidar; Cathy Jeon; Richard Rothman; Randall Snead; Christopher T Pyne
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg).

Authors:  A J Chase; E B Fretz; W P Warburton; W P Klinke; R G Carere; D Pi; B Berry; J D Hilton
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2008-03-10       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  Day procedure intervention is safe and complication free in higher risk patients undergoing transradial angioplasty and stenting. The discharge study.

Authors:  Andrew Small; Peter Klinke; Anthony Della Siega; Eric Fretz; David Kinloch; Richard Mildenberger; Malcolm Williams; David Hilton
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2007-12-01       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Effect of radial versus femoral access on radiation dose and the importance of procedural volume: a substudy of the multicenter randomized RIVAL trial.

Authors:  Sanjit S Jolly; John Cairns; Kari Niemela; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Madhu K Natarajan; Asim N Cheema; Sunil V Rao; Warren J Cantor; Vladimír Džavík; Andrzej Budaj; Tej Sheth; Vicent Valentin; Anthony Fung; Petr Widimsky; Emile Ferrari; Peggy Gao; Barbara Jedrzejowski; Shamir R Mehta
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 11.195

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.