Comparative evaluation of radiation shielding zero gravity vs lead apron in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring safety from radiation in catheterization labs is critical due to the cumulative nature of radiation exposure. This study compares the effectiveness of Zero Gravity (ZG) and conventional Lead Apron shields in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

Over six months, radiation exposure was assessed for two operators performing angiography procedures. One operator used a Lead Apron, while the other used the Zero Gravity system. Radiation was measured using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). Procedural characteristics, fluoroscopy time, and contrast dose were recorded. Feedback on Lead Apron use was collected using the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Each operator performed 63 procedures with similar characteristics. Zero Gravity showed no significant difference in whole-body radiation exposure (De) compared to the Lead Apron (0.349 mSv vs. 0.346 mSv). However, Zero Gravity resulted in a lower external skin dose (Ds) compared to the Lead Apron (0.314 mSv vs. 0.339 mSv). Most cardiologists reported minimal disability from using Lead Aprons.

DISCUSSION: Zero Gravity and Lead Apron provide comparable whole-body radiation protection, with Zero Gravity slightly reducing skin exposure. While ZG does not significantly alter overall radiation exposure, it may reduce ergonomic issues associated with Lead Aprons.

CONCLUSION

Zero Gravity provides comparable whole-body radiation protection to Lead Aprons and reduces skin exposure. Further research is needed to address long-term impacts and enhance protective strategies in catheterization labs.