Cargando…

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 mitig...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cammann, Victoria L., Schweiger, Victor, Cieslik, Maciej, Seifert, Burkhardt, Gilhofer, Thomas, Koleva, Iva, Würdinger, Michael, Candreva, Alessandro, Gajic, Marko, Michel, Jonathan, Jakob, Philipp, Stehli, Julia, Stähli, Barbara, Templin, Christian, Gotschy, Alexander
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10160176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36646858
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02142-8
_version_ 1785037232096149504
author Cammann, Victoria L.
Schweiger, Victor
Cieslik, Maciej
Seifert, Burkhardt
Gilhofer, Thomas
Koleva, Iva
Würdinger, Michael
Candreva, Alessandro
Gajic, Marko
Michel, Jonathan
Jakob, Philipp
Stehli, Julia
Stähli, Barbara
Templin, Christian
Gotschy, Alexander
author_facet Cammann, Victoria L.
Schweiger, Victor
Cieslik, Maciej
Seifert, Burkhardt
Gilhofer, Thomas
Koleva, Iva
Würdinger, Michael
Candreva, Alessandro
Gajic, Marko
Michel, Jonathan
Jakob, Philipp
Stehli, Julia
Stähli, Barbara
Templin, Christian
Gotschy, Alexander
author_sort Cammann, Victoria L.
collection PubMed
description 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. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Figure: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-022-02142-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10160176
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101601762023-05-06 Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study Cammann, Victoria L. Schweiger, Victor Cieslik, Maciej Seifert, Burkhardt Gilhofer, Thomas Koleva, Iva Würdinger, Michael Candreva, Alessandro Gajic, Marko Michel, Jonathan Jakob, Philipp Stehli, Julia Stähli, Barbara Templin, Christian Gotschy, Alexander Clin Res Cardiol Original Paper 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. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Figure: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-022-02142-8. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-01-16 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10160176/ /pubmed/36646858 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02142-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Paper
Cammann, Victoria L.
Schweiger, Victor
Cieslik, Maciej
Seifert, Burkhardt
Gilhofer, Thomas
Koleva, Iva
Würdinger, Michael
Candreva, Alessandro
Gajic, Marko
Michel, Jonathan
Jakob, Philipp
Stehli, Julia
Stähli, Barbara
Templin, Christian
Gotschy, Alexander
Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study
title Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study
title_full Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study
title_fullStr Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study
title_short Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study
title_sort effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10160176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36646858
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02142-8
work_keys_str_mv AT cammannvictorial effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT schweigervictor effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT cieslikmaciej effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT seifertburkhardt effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT gilhoferthomas effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT kolevaiva effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT wurdingermichael effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT candrevaalessandro effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT gajicmarko effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT micheljonathan effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT jakobphilipp effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT stehlijulia effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT stahlibarbara effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT templinchristian effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy
AT gotschyalexander effectivenessofradiationprotectionsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratoryacomparativestudy