Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2019
Reduced radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory with a novel vertical radiation shield.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Panetta Carmelo J, Galbraith Erin M, Yanavitski Marat, Koller Patrick K, Shah Binita, Iqbal Sohah, Cigarroa Joaquin E, Gordon Gregory, Rao Sunil V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Investigation of novel vertical radiation shield (VRS) in reducing operator radiation exposure.
BACKGROUND: Radiation exposure to the operator remains an occupational health hazard in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL).
METHODS: A mannequin simulating an operator was placed near a computational phantom, simulating a patient. Measurement of dose equivalent and Air Kerma located the angle with the highest radiation, followed by a common magnification (8 in.) and comparison of horizontal radiation absorbing pads (HRAP) with or without VRS with two different: CCL, phantoms, and dosimeters. Physician exposure was subsequently measured prospectively with or without VRS during clinical procedures.
RESULTS: Dose equivalent and Air Kerma to the mannequin was highest at left anterior oblique (LAO)-caudal angle (p < .005). Eight-inch magnification increased mGray by 86.5% and μSv/min by 12.2% compared to 10-in. (p < .005). Moving 40 cm from the access site lowered μSv/min by 30% (p < .005). With LAO-caudal angle and 8-in. magnification, VRS reduced μSv/min by 59%, (p < .005) in one CCL and μSv by 100% (p = .016) in second CCL in addition to HRAP. Prospective study of 177 procedures with HRAP, found VRS lowered μSv by 41.9% (μSv: 15.2 ± 13.4 vs. 26.2 ± 31.4, p = .001) with no difference in mGray. The difference was significant after multivariate adjustment for specified variables (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Operator radiation exposure is significantly reduced utilizing a novel VRS, HRAP, and distance from the X-ray tube, and consideration of lower magnification and avoiding LAO-caudal angles to lower radiation for both operator and patient.
BACKGROUND: Radiation exposure to the operator remains an occupational health hazard in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL).
METHODS: A mannequin simulating an operator was placed near a computational phantom, simulating a patient. Measurement of dose equivalent and Air Kerma located the angle with the highest radiation, followed by a common magnification (8 in.) and comparison of horizontal radiation absorbing pads (HRAP) with or without VRS with two different: CCL, phantoms, and dosimeters. Physician exposure was subsequently measured prospectively with or without VRS during clinical procedures.
RESULTS: Dose equivalent and Air Kerma to the mannequin was highest at left anterior oblique (LAO)-caudal angle (p < .005). Eight-inch magnification increased mGray by 86.5% and μSv/min by 12.2% compared to 10-in. (p < .005). Moving 40 cm from the access site lowered μSv/min by 30% (p < .005). With LAO-caudal angle and 8-in. magnification, VRS reduced μSv/min by 59%, (p < .005) in one CCL and μSv by 100% (p = .016) in second CCL in addition to HRAP. Prospective study of 177 procedures with HRAP, found VRS lowered μSv by 41.9% (μSv: 15.2 ± 13.4 vs. 26.2 ± 31.4, p = .001) with no difference in mGray. The difference was significant after multivariate adjustment for specified variables (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Operator radiation exposure is significantly reduced utilizing a novel VRS, HRAP, and distance from the X-ray tube, and consideration of lower magnification and avoiding LAO-caudal angles to lower radiation for both operator and patient.