Literature DB >> 29780037

Past and present work practices of European interventional cardiologists in the context of radiation protection of the eye lens-results of the EURALOC study.

Joanna Domienik-Andrzejewska1, Olivera Ciraj-Bjelac, Panagiotis Askounis, Peter Covens, Octavian Dragusin, Sophie Jacob, Jad Farah, Emilio Gianicolo, Renato Padovani, Pedro Teles, Anders Widmark, Lara Struelens.   

Abstract

This paper investigates over five decades of work practices in interventional cardiology, with an emphasis on radiation protection. The analysis is based on data from more than 400 cardiologists from various European countries recruited for a EURALOC study and collected in the period from 2014 to 2016. Information on the types of procedures performed and their annual mean number, fluoroscopy time, access site choice, x-ray units and radiation protection means used was collected using an occupational questionnaire. Based on the specific European data, changes in each parameter have been analysed over decades, while country-specific data analysis has allowed us to determine the differences in local practices. In particular, based on the collected data, the typical workload of a European cardiologist working in a haemodynamic room and an electrophysiology room was specified for various types of procedures. The results showed that when working in a haemodynamic room, a transparent ceiling-suspended lead shield or lead glasses are necessary in order to remain below the recommended eye lens dose limit of 20 mSv. Moreover, the analysis revealed that new, more complex cardiac procedures such as chronic total occlusion, valvuloplasty and pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation ablation might contribute substantially to annual doses, although they are relatively rarely performed. The results revealed that considerable progress has been made in the use of radiation protection tools. While their use in electrophysiology procedures is not generic, the situation in haemodynamic procedures is rather encouraging, as ceiling-suspended shields are used in 90% of cases, while the combination of ceiling shield and lead glasses is noted in more than 40% of the procedures. However, we find that still 7% of haemodynamic procedures are performed without any radiation protection tools.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29780037     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/aac64b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Radiol Prot        ISSN: 0952-4746            Impact factor:   1.394


  4 in total

Review 1.  Challenges in Occupational Dosimetry for Interventional Radiologists.

Authors:  E Vano; R Sanchez Casanueva; J M Fernandez Soto; G Bartal
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 2.  Eye protection in interventional procedures.

Authors:  Beth A Schueler; Kenneth A Fetterly
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.629

3.  Radiation Dose to the Eye Lens Through Radiological Imaging Procedures at the Surgical Workplace During Trauma Surgery.

Authors:  Christian Apelmann; Birgitt Kowald; Nils Weinrich; Jens Dischinger; Albert Nienhaus; Klaus Seide; Heiko Martens; Christian Jürgens
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Occupational exposure to physicians working with a Zero-Gravity™ protection system in haemodynamic and electrophysiology labs and the assessment of its performance against a standard ceiling suspended shield.

Authors:  Joanna Domienik-Andrzejewska; Mateusz Mirowski; Marek Jastrzębski; Tomasz Górnik; Konrad Masiarek; Izabela Warchoł; Włodzimierz Grabowicz
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2022-02-26       Impact factor: 2.017

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.