Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
Impact of Radiation-Attenuating Drape on Exposure in a Contemporary Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: The ATTENUATE Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Medranda Giorgio A, Bliagos Dimitrios, Case Brian C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite recent improvements in radiation safety, interventionalists are increasingly exposed to radiation during cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) procedures. The RADPAD was designed as a protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield with early studies demonstrating a 20% to 62% reduction in scatter-radiation. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield in a large contemporary randomized controlled trial across multiple CCL procedures.
METHODS: The investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, controlled ATTENUATE (rAdpad proTecTion drapE iN redUcing rAdiaTion Exposure) trial randomized CCL procedures 1:1 to use of the RADPAD vs no use of the RADPAD. The primary outcome of interest was the most proximal operator's dose area product (DAP)-normalized operator dose (E).
RESULTS: A total of 1000 CCL procedures were randomized 1:1 to use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (n = 500) vs no use (n = 500). The use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield was associated with a 45.1% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized operator dose compared with no use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (0.64 vs 0.35 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P < .0001). Coronary cases (n = 720) saw a 21.9% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.33 vs 0.43 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P < .001), and structural cases (n = 210) saw a 54.4% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.30 vs 0.66 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P = .1094).
CONCLUSIONS: In the largest randomized controlled trial to date evaluating the RADPAD protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield, encompassing contemporary coronary and structural CCL procedures, use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield led to a marked decrease in proximal operator radiation exposure when adjusted for the total radiation delivered during each procedure.
METHODS: The investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, controlled ATTENUATE (rAdpad proTecTion drapE iN redUcing rAdiaTion Exposure) trial randomized CCL procedures 1:1 to use of the RADPAD vs no use of the RADPAD. The primary outcome of interest was the most proximal operator's dose area product (DAP)-normalized operator dose (E).
RESULTS: A total of 1000 CCL procedures were randomized 1:1 to use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (n = 500) vs no use (n = 500). The use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield was associated with a 45.1% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized operator dose compared with no use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (0.64 vs 0.35 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P < .0001). Coronary cases (n = 720) saw a 21.9% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.33 vs 0.43 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P < .001), and structural cases (n = 210) saw a 54.4% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.30 vs 0.66 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P = .1094).
CONCLUSIONS: In the largest randomized controlled trial to date evaluating the RADPAD protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield, encompassing contemporary coronary and structural CCL procedures, use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield led to a marked decrease in proximal operator radiation exposure when adjusted for the total radiation delivered during each procedure.