1. Randomized Controlled Trial of Radiation Protection With a Patient Lead Shield and a Novel, Nonlead Surgical Cap for Operators Performing Coronary Angiography or Intervention
- Author
-
Shaheen Pandie, Christopher L. Gordon, Shun Fu Lee, Tej Sheth, Michael Rokoss, Kiersten Colbran, Brandi Meeks, Madhu K. Natarajan, Ashraf Alazzoni, Nicholas Valettas, James L. Velianou, Jaffer Syed, Shamir R. Mehta, Sanjit S. Jolly, Ed Waller, Jon-David Schwalm, Darar Al Khdair, Michael Tsang, and Tamara Marsden
- Subjects
Coronary angiography ,Male ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Coronary Angiography ,law.invention ,Kerma ,Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ,Radiation Protection ,Randomized controlled trial ,Protective Clothing ,law ,Occupational Exposure ,medicine ,Humans ,Lead (electronics) ,Occupational Health ,Aged ,business.industry ,Percutaneous coronary intervention ,Middle Aged ,Radiation Exposure ,Confidence interval ,Clinical trial ,Lead ,Female ,Radiation protection ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,Nuclear medicine ,business - Abstract
Background— Interventional cardiologists receive one of the highest levels of annual occupational radiation exposure. Further measures to protect healthcare workers are needed. Methods and Results— We evaluated the efficacy of a pelvic lead shield and a novel surgical cap in reducing operators’ radiation exposure. Patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=230) were randomized to have their procedure with or without a lead shield (Ultraray Medical, Oakville, Canada) placed over the patient. During all procedures, operators wore the No Brainer surgical cap (Worldwide Innovations and Technology, Kansas City, KS) designed to protect the head from radiation exposure. The coprimary outcomes for the lead shield comparison were (1) operator dose (µSv) and (2) operator dose indexed for air kerma (µSv/mGy). For the cap comparison, the primary outcome was the difference between total radiation dose (µSv; internal and external to cap). The lead shield use resulted in a 76% reduction in operator dose (mean dose, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00–4.71 µSv lead shield group versus 12.57; 95% CI, 8.14–19.40 µSv control group; P P P Conclusions— The use of a pelvic lead shield and the cap reduced significantly the operator radiation exposure and can be easily incorporated into clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02128035.
- Published
- 2015