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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |