Study Confirms Lead Shields Protect Cath Lab Staff from Radiation Exposure

The recent publication of several reports on risk of cataract, left sided brain tumors, subclinical atherosclerosis and chromosome damage among interventional cardiologists has raised increasing concerns about radiation exposure in the cath lab.

Por primera vez un estudio confirma que las pantallas de protección plomadas resguardan de la radiación a todo el personal de la sala de cateterismos

Recognizing these risks has created a demand of these new forms of protection. Unfortunately, these have mainly been focused on the main operator, when it is pretty obvious the whole team is exposed.


Read also: Nearly half of interventional cardiologists may have pre-cataract lesions”.


The present study assessed the use of accessory lead shields to protect circulating staff in the cath lab, such as radiology technicians and nurses.

 

To find out about the impact of these accessory lead shields, researchers used real time dosimetry in nurses and technicians participating in 764 consecutive procedures. 

 

The study was divided in two phases: the first (n=401) used standard protection (which included protection shields for the main operator); phase 2 (n=363) two accessory shields located between patient and each of the staff members were added to standard protection. Radiation exposure was reported as the effective dose normalized to dose area product.


Read also: Effects of Cerebral Radiation on Interventional Cardiologists”.


Use of accessory shields saw a 62.5% reduction per case among technologists (phase I: 2.4 [4.3] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; phase II: 0.9 [2.8] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; p < 0.001) and a 63.6% reduction per case among nurses (phase I: 1.1 [3.1] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; phase II: 0.4 [1.8] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; p < 0.001).

 

By multivariate analysis, accessory shields remained independently associated with a dose reduction among both technicians and nurses.

 

Conclusion

With a nearly two thirds reduction in radiation exposure in nurses and technicians, the use of accessory lead shields is relatively simple and offers effective protection to all staff in the cath lab. 

 

Editorial Comment

Protection shields had already been shown to reduce radiation exposure in main operators, but this is the first study to observe a similar benefit in the rest of the cath lab staff, which could have huge implications as regards occupational safety. 

 

There were specific differences in radiation exposure among nurses and technicians, which could be attributed to their different roles in the cath lab:

  • On one side, the technicians generally stand beside the main operator and at a relatively fixed distance from the radiation source. Given their position, the dose they receive directly depends on the dose used in the procedure, and the lead shield was the only game changer.
  • On the other hand, nurses move around the cath lab and change their distance from the source. Procedures requiring nurses to stand closer to patients to administer drugs or antiplatelet agents, or to place an oxygen mask (among other tasks), were associated to higher radiation exposure.

Read also: Important Study Detects Radiation-Induced DNA Damage in Operators After an Endovascular Procedure”.


In a diagnostic position followed by PCI, nurses will necessarily approach patients to carry out the above-mentioned tasks while main operators continue to step on the fluoroscopy pedal. This can increase radiation exposure for nurses as much as 425%. These specific activities dramatically raise nurse radiation exposure. Lead shields protect all members involved and should be used by all cath lab staff, regardless their role.

 

Original title: Radiation Exposure Among Scrub Technologists and Nurse Circulators During Cardiac Catheterization. The Impact of Accessory Lead Shields.

Reference: Ryan D. Madder et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2017, Article in press.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...

TCT 2024 | SIRONA: Randomized Study Comparing Sirolimus-Coated vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Femoropopliteal Disease

This prospective, randomized, multicenter, investigator-initiated non-inferiority study compared the use of sirolimus-coated balloon (MagicTouch) vs paclitaxel-coated balloon in endovascular treatment.  The primary objective was to...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...