MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1161/jaha.126.050577

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026

Evaluating Standard Shielding Versus Novel Enhanced Radiation Protection Devices in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.

Guddeti Raviteja R, Schmidt Christian W, Riley Robert F, Kamen Jacob, Frizzell Jarrod, Haddox Korey, Kong James, Rudick Steven, Emani Sitaramesh, Corl John D, Seshiah Puvi, Henry Timothy D, Kereiakes Dean J, Tribble Samantha, Garcia Santiago

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Enhanced radiation protection devices (ERPDs) have the potential to reduce occupational risks in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. We aimed to investigate scatter radiation exposure to various cardiac catheterization laboratory members using 2 ERPDs.

METHODS

We prospectively allocated cases to 3 different shielding conditions: standard shielding (group 1), EggNest Protect ERPD (group 2), and EggNest Complete ERPD (group 3). Real-time dosimetry was used to measure radiation exposure at 3 positions: primary operator (position 1), assistant (position 2), and circulating nurse (position 3). Effective dose equivalent was estimated (annualized to 300 cases/y).

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients were included in the study (mean age, 68±11 years; 73% men). For position 1, annualized effective dose equivalent -1 doses were 51.4 (19.1-101.3), 7.0 (2.3-21.5), and 2.4 (0.9-6.2) mRem for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P<0.001) standard shielding versus Protect ERPD: 33.1 (95% CI, 11.1-62.9), standard shielding versus Complete ERPD: 41.4 (20.5-71.9). For position 2, annualized effective dose equivalent -1 doses were 2.8 (2.0-6.3), 1.1 (0.6-6.4), and 0.8 (0.3-2.7) mRem for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P<0.001) standard shielding versus Protect ERPD: 33.1 (95% CI, 11.1-62.9), standard shielding versus Complete ERPD: 41.4 (20.5-71.9). For position 3, annualized effective dose equivalent -1 doses were 1.5 (0.6-4.0), 1.5 (0.3-2.4), and 0.8 (0.2-2.5) mRem for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P=0.003) standard shielding versus Protect ERPD: 0.3 (-0.4 to 1.2), standard shielding versus Complete ERPD: 0.4 (-0.1 to 1.4). With the use of the EggNest Complete ERPD without a lead apron, annualized total effective doses are ≤1% of the recommended annual maximum for all positions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with standard shielding, ERPDs significantly lowered scatter radiation exposure to all members of the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Для цитирования: Guddeti Raviteja R, Schmidt Christian W, Riley Robert F, Kamen Jacob, Frizzell Jarrod, Haddox Korey, Kong James, Rudick Steven, Emani Sitaramesh, Corl John D, Seshiah Puvi, Henry Timothy D, Kereiakes Dean J, Tribble Samantha, Garcia Santiago. Evaluating Standard Shielding Versus Novel Enhanced Radiation Protection Devices in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2026. DOI: 10.1161/jaha.126.050577.
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.