MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1161/circinterventions.124.014602

Медицинская библиотека · Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2025

Operator Radiation Exposure Comparing the Left Radial Artery Approach and a Uniform Hyper-Adducted Right Radial Artery Approach: The HARRA Study.

Casazza Richard, Malik Bilal, Hashmi Arsalan, Fogel Joshua, Montagna Enrico, Frankel Robert, Borgen Elliot, Ayzenberg Sergey, Friedman Michael, Moskovits Norbert, Verma Shivani, Meng Jamie, Chang Nailun, Huang Yili, Rodriguez Carlos, Chera Habib Hymie, Raj Shiv, Chaterjee Saurav, Gibson Daren, Palacios Andres, Agarwal Chirag, Nene Maria Victoria, Shani Jacob

СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Radiation exposure is one of the most adverse occupational hazards faced by interventional cardiologists. Various arterial access sites have shown to yield different operator radiation exposure during diagnostic cardiac catheterization.

METHODS

This single-center randomized controlled trial assessed the cumulative radiation exposure and normalized radiation exposure at 4 different anatomic locations (thorax, abdomen, left eye, and right eye) of the primary operator when using the left radial artery (LRA) approach compared with a uniform hyper-adducted right radial artery (HARRA) approach. Patients (n=534) were randomized to LRA (n=269) or HARRA (n=265). During diagnostic catheterization, real-time radiation dosimeters were placed on the thorax, abdomen, left eye, and right eye of each operator.

RESULTS

Cumulative radiation measurements were as follows: thorax (LRA, 9.66±8.57 microsieverts [μSv] versus HARRA, 12.27±7.09 μSv; P<0.001); abdomen (LRA, 27.46±21.20 μSv versus HARRA, 36.56±23.72 μSv; P<0.001); left eye (LRA, 2.65±2.59 μSv versus HARRA, 3.77±2.67 μSv; P<0.001); and right eye (LRA, 1.13±1.69 μSv versus HARRA, 1.44±1.62 μSv; P=0.01). Normalized radiation measurements were: thorax (LRA, 0.38±0.35 versus HARRA, 0.49±0.24; P<0.001); abdomen (LRA, 1.06±0.72 versus HARRA, 1.38±0.69; P<0.001); left eye (LRA, 0.10±0.09 versus HARRA, 0.15±0.10; P<0.001); and right eye: (LRA, 0.04±0.06 versus HARRA, 0.05±0.06; P=0.02). LRA had lower subclavian tortuosity than HARRA (15.6% versus 32.5%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The LRA was associated with significantly less cumulative and normalized radiation exposure to the thorax, abdomen, left eye, and right eye of the primary operator compared with HARRA during diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Operators should consider using LRA more frequently than HARRA for diagnostic cardiac catheterization as this approach can reduce occupational radiation exposure.

REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05833516.

Для цитирования: Casazza Richard, Malik Bilal, Hashmi Arsalan, Fogel Joshua, Montagna Enrico, Frankel Robert, Borgen Elliot, Ayzenberg Sergey, Friedman Michael, Moskovits Norbert, Verma Shivani, Meng Jamie, Chang Nailun, Huang Yili, Rodriguez Carlos, Chera Habib Hymie, Raj Shiv, Chaterjee Saurav, Gibson Daren, Palacios Andres, Agarwal Chirag, Nene Maria Victoria, Shani Jacob. Operator Radiation Exposure Comparing the Left Radial Artery Approach and a Uniform Hyper-Adducted Right Radial Artery Approach: The HARRA Study.. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions. 2025. DOI: 10.1161/circinterventions.124.014602.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.