Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

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 information

Affiliations

  • 1. From the Department of Medicine and the Population Health Research Institute (PHRI), McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (A.A., C.L.G., J.S., M.K.N., M.R., J.-D.S., S.R.M., T.S., N.V., J.V., S.P., D.A.K., M.T., B.M., K.C., S.F.L., T.M., S.S.J.); and Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, Institute of Technology, University of Ontario, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada (E.W.).
      Authors
    • Alazzoni A 1
    • Gordon CL 1
    • Syed J 1
    • Natarajan MK 1
    • Rokoss M 1
    • Schwalm JD 1
    • Mehta SR 1
    • Sheth T 1
    • Valettas N 1
    • Velianou J 1
    • Pandie S 1
    • Al Khdair D 1
    • Tsang M 1
    • Meeks B 1
    • Colbran K 1
    • Waller E 1
    • Fu Lee S 1
    • Marsden T 1
    • Jolly SS 1
    (19 authors)

Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions, 01 Aug 2015, 8(8):e002384
https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.115.002384 PMID: 26253734 

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<0.001). The mean dose indexed for air kerma was reduced by 72% (0.004; 95% CI, 0.003-0.005 µSv/mGy lead shield group versus 0.015; 95% CI, 0.012-0.019 µSv/mGy control group; P<0.001). The cap use resulted in a significant reduction in operator head radiation exposure (mean left temporal difference [external-internal] radiation dose was 4.79 [95% CI, 3.30-6.68] µSv; P<0.001).

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.

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.115.002384

Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002384Unpaywall

References 

Articles referenced by this article (16)

Show 6 more references (10 of 16)

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics

19
Citations
Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/21356965
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/21356965

Article citations

Go to all (19) article citations

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.