Implementing a 'Lead [Apron]-Free' Cardiac Catheterization: Current Status

Kern, Morton J.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-024-02102-w

IF: 3.955

2024-07-26

Current Cardiology Reports

Abstract:In this review, we discuss the status of novel radiation shielding and other methods to reduce radiation exposure and its associated health risks within the CCL.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Advancements in Cardiac Catheterization Safety: Novel Radiation Protection Approaches Redefining Occupational Health

Zahra Shaghaghi,Roozbeh Narimani Javid,Maryam Alvandi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/011573403X304828240819050538

2024-08-20

Abstract:Radiation exposure poses a substantial occupational risk for healthcare professionals in the catheterization laboratory (cath lab). The escalating complexity and frequency of interventional procedures, such as cardiac catheterizations and percutaneous coronary interventions, underscore the need for innovative strategies to mitigate radiation exposure. While traditional measures like lead aprons, thyroid collars, and goggles have been pivotal in reducing radiation exposure, they have limitations, especially during prolonged and intricate procedures. Consequently, there is a growing demand for advanced radiation protection methods that prioritize safety without compromising procedural efficacy. Recent strides in radiation protection technology have given rise to novel shielding devices and zero-radiation approaches tailored for cath lab use. The novel shields leverage innovative materials and designs to achieve superior attenuation of both scattered and direct radiation. Their ergonomic and adjustable features also ensure optimal shielding coverage without impeding the operator's skill or workflow. Multiple studies have validated the effectiveness of these advanced radiation protection methods in diminishing occupational radiation exposure in the cath lab. Initial findings suggest a significant reduction in doses for operators and staff, potentially lowering the risk of radiation-induced health complications over the long term. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current landscape of radiation protection shields in the cath lab, emphasizing the efficacy and potential of these cuttingedge shielding technologies.
A Novel Shielding Device for Cardiac Cath Labs

Lancer Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001890

2024-09-19

Abstract:This research evaluates the effectiveness of a large specialized cardiac catheterization laboratory shielding device (SCCLSD) placed perpendicular to the patient compared to traditional shielding methods in reducing occupational exposure to scattered x rays, contributing to the ongoing enhancement of radiation safety in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) setting. An experimental setup involving an anthropomorphic phantom on the catheterization table simulated radiation scatter from a patient. Measurements were taken systematically at various grid points and heights in the CCL using a Fluke 451P ion chamber while mimicking a real interventional scenario. In-air peak exposure rates were analyzed at head, chest, and waist heights in the anteroposterior (AP) position. Results demonstrated that the SCCLSD provided a superior radiation shadow and effective whole-body radiation exposure reduction compared to conventional shielding devices. Considering that conventional shielding requires staff to wear lead aprons, an effective dose equivalent correction factor was applied for exposure measurements without the SCCLSD. Even after the correction factor, the SCCLSD continued outperforming lead aprons and offered whole-body protection, including the head and arms, which is typically neglected with conventional shielding. The SCCLSD also reduces exposure to the eyes, aligning with lower occupational exposure recommendations from ICRP and NCRP. However, proper CCL staff positioning is important in maximizing the effectiveness of the SCCLSD. Future research avenues may explore exposure rates at different C-arm angles to more completely assess the SCCLSD's impact on occupational exposure.
A novel comprehensive radiation shielding system eliminates need for personal lead aprons in the catheterization laboratory

Maher Rabah,Sorcha Allen,Amr E Abbas,Simon Dixon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30490

Abstract:Objectives: This clinical study evaluated the efficacy of a novel radiation shielding system for the cardiac catheterization laboratory designed to provide comprehensive protection that obviates the need for personal lead aprons. Background: Invasive Cardiologists are exposed to occupational health hazards related directly to radiation exposure (RE) and indirectly to the orthopedic burden of wearing only partially protective lead aprons. Innovations to reduce these risks are warranted. A novel comprehensive shielding system (ProtegoTM , Image Diagnostics Inc, Fitchburg, Ma) has been validated in pre-clinical studies to provide excellent radiation protection, sufficient for the State of Michigan to certify it for use without need for personal lead aprons. Methods: This clinical analysis measured RE to a single Physician operator utilizing the ProtegoTM shield (and not wearing personal lead apron) during routine cardiac catheterization procedures (diagnostic and interventional). RE was measured at both thyroid and waist level with a real-time dosimetry system (RaysafeTM , Billdal, Sweden), calculated on a median per case basis (mrems). Additional parameters collected included procedure type, access site, per case fluoroscopy time, and patient factors including body mass index. Results: In n=98 cases (25% diagnostic, 75% interventional including 22% chronic total occlusions), median/case RE was 0.4 mrems (thyroid) and 0.2 mrems (waist). RE=0 in 12 cases. In no case did radiation exposure exceed 3.2 mrems. Conclusion: The ProtegoTM shield system provides excellent RE protection to the Physician operator, without the need for personal lead aprons and has the potential to reduce catheterization laboratory occupational health hazards.
Radiation Exposure Among Scrub Technologists and Nurse Circulators During Cardiac Catheterization: The Impact of Accessory Lead Shields

Ryan D Madder,Andrew LaCombe,Stacie VanOosterhout,Abbey Mulder,Matthew Elmore,Jessica L Parker,Mark E Jacoby,David Wohns

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.07.026

2018-01-22

Abstract:Objectives: This study was performed to determine if the use of an accessory lead shield is associated with a reduction in radiation exposure among staff members during cardiac catheterization. Background: Accessory lead shields that protect physicians from scatter radiation are standard in many catheterization laboratories, yet similar shielding for staff members is not commonplace. Methods: Real-time radiation exposure data were prospectively collected among nurses and technologists during 764 consecutive catheterizations. The study had 2 phases: in phase I (n = 401), standard radiation protection measures were used, and in phase II (n = 363), standard radiation protection measures were combined with an accessory lead shield placed between the staff member and patient. Radiation exposure was reported as the effective dose normalized to dose-area product (EDAP). Results: Use of an accessory lead shield in phase II was associated with a 62.5% lower EDAP per case among technologists (phase I: 2.4 [4.3] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; phase II: 0.9 [2.8] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; p < 0.001) and a 63.6% lower EDAP per case among nurses (phase I: 1.1 [3.1] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; phase II: 0.4 [1.8] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; p < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, accessory shielding remained independently associated with a lower EDAP among both technologists (34.2% reduction; 95% confidence interval: 20.1% to 45.8%; p < 0.001) and nurses (36.4% reduction; 95% confidence interval: 19.7% to 49.6%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The relatively simple approach of using accessory lead shields to protect staff members during cardiac catheterization was associated with a nearly two-thirds reduction in radiation exposure among nurses and technologists.
Radiation protection during hybrid procedures: innovation creates new challenges

Jaclynn M Sawdy,Mark D Gocha,Vincent Olshove,Joanne L Chisolm,Sharon L Hill,Alistair Phillips,Mark Galantowicz,John P Cheatham,Ralf J Holzer

Abstract:Background: The cooperation between interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons has expanded the spectrum of treatment modalities for patients with congenital heart disease. These hybrid techniques have created new challenges, one of which being the provision of adequate but practical radiation protection. This study evaluates the use of a lightweight radiation protection drape (RADPAD) that may be suitable for shielding during hybrid procedures. Methods: To simulate a pediatric patient, an 8.7 liter water-filled tub was placed on an X-ray table and exposed to 10-second cine acquisition runs. Radiation exposure was measured at twelve specified locations around the table using a model with three different levels of radiation protection: no shielding, shielding using a traditional 0.35 mm lead-equivalent apron, and shielding using the 0.25 mm lead-equivalent RADPAD. Results: The traditional lead apron and the RADPAD significantly reduced the amount of radiation dose when compared with no shielding. The standard lead apron provided slightly greater radiation protection than the RADPAD (0.000064 radiation absorbed dose [rad] vs. 0.000091 rad; p = 0.012). The measured rad was significantly higher on the right side of the table, and the measured radiation dose decreased significantly with increasing distance from the table. Conclusions: The RADPAD has been shown to function as an efficient shielding device, even though it does not quite match the protection that can be expected from a standard lead apron. It complies with regulatory radiation protection requirements and its lightweight and sterile use make it particularly useful during hybrid procedures in the operating room.
Quantifying and minimizing radiation exposure during pediatric cardiac catheterization

R M Campbell,M J Strieper,P A Frias,G Jeager,G Balfour,L Costello,K M Sullivan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-004-0353-x

Abstract:This study reports findings from evaluations of new technologies to measure radiation exposure during pediatric cardiac catheterization procedures. A strategy of pulsed fluoroscopy and low power settings resulted in significantly lower patient radiation exposure compared to conventional 60 frames/sec, high-power settings during fluoroscopy. During radiofrequency ablation procedures, thyroid and thoracic skin sites outside the direct fluoroscopic field received minimal radiation exposure. Intrathoracic radiation exposure was measured with the use of an esophageal dosimeter. In conclusion, strategies to reduce total radiation exposure should be employed, radiation dose should be measured, and assessment of radiation skin injury should be included in post-catheterization assessment.
700.06 Comprehensive Radiation Shield Minimizes Operator Radiation Exposure and Obviates Need for Lead Aprons in Coronary and Structural Intervention

D. Rizik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2024.01.224

IF: 11.075

2024-02-28

JACC Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:This study evaluated the efficacy of a novel comprehensive shield designed to minimize radiation exposure (RE) to Physicians performing coronary and structural heart procedures.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology

Kamala P Tamirisa,Mirvat Alasnag,Peter Calvert,Sabrina Islam,Anju Bhardwaj,Keerthana Pakanati,Shelley Zieroth,Mansour Razminia,Aarti S Dalal,Mamas Mamas,Andrea M Russo,Smadar Kort,ACC Women in Cardiology Advocacy Work Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.100863

2024-02-29

Abstract:Exposure to ionizing radiation is an inherent occupational health hazard in clinical cardiology. Health risks have been reported previously, including predilection to cancer. In addition, orthopedic injury due to prolonged wearing of heavy protective lead aprons, which are mandatory to reduce radiation risk, have been extensively documented. Cardiology as a specialty has grown with rising volumes of increasingly complex procedures. This includes electrophysiological, coronary, and structural intervention, advanced heart failure/transplant management, and diagnostic imaging. Both the operator as well imaging specialists are exposed to radiation, particularly in structural interventions where interventional cardiologists and structural imagers work closely. Increasingly, women interested in cardiology may deselect the field due to radiation concerns. This expert document highlights the risks of radiation exposure in cardiology, including practical tips within various subspecialty fields such as interventional/structural cardiology, electrophysiology, imaging, advanced heart failure, and pediatric cardiology.
Radiation Exposure Using Rampart vs Standard Lead Aprons and Shields During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures

John C Lisko,Nikoloz Shekiladze,Joseph Chamoun,Noah Sheikh,Katharine Rainer,Jane Wei,Jose Binongo,Leah Raj,Isida Byku,Stephane Rinfret,Chandan Devireddy,Wissam A Jaber,Adam B Greenbaum,Vasilis Babaliaros,Stephen Steuterman,Pratik Sandesara,William J Nicholson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101184

2023-10-19

Abstract:Background: Radiation exposure during invasive cardiovascular procedures remains an important health care issue. Lead aprons and shields (LAS) are used to decrease radiation exposure but leave large portions of the body unshielded. The Rampart IC M1128 is a portable radiation shielding system that may significantly attenuate radiation exposure. Methods: Catheterization laboratory teams were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to perform elective invasive cardiovascular procedures utilizing either traditional LAS or the Rampart IC M1128. Radiation exposure was measured using real-time dosimetry monitoring in prespecified anatomic locations on 3 operators (position 1: first operator/fellow; position 2: second operator/attending; and position 3: catheterization laboratory nurse/technologist). Radiation exposure was measured on a per-case basis. Results: In total, 100 consecutive cases were randomized in this study (47 Rampart; 53 LAS). There was no difference in fluoroscopy time (12.3 minutes for Rampart vs 15.4 minutes for LAS; P = .52), dose area product (288 Gy⋅cm2 for Rampart vs 376.5 Gy⋅cm2 for LAS; P = .52), or scatter radiation (38.8 mRem for Rampart vs 46.8 mRem for LAS; P = .61) between the groups. There was significantly lower total body radiation (in milliroentgen equivalent man) exposure using the Rampart than that using LAS for each team member: position 1-0.1 mRem for Rampart vs 2.2 mRem for LAS; P < .001; position 2-0.1 mRem Rampart vs 3.2 mRem LAS; P < .001; and position 3-0.0 mRem for Rampart vs 0.8 mRem for LAS; P < .001. Conclusions: During routine clinical procedures, the Rampart system significantly decreases total body radiation exposure compared with traditional LAS.
Comprehensive Shielding System Enhances Radiation Protection for Structural Heart Procedures

David G Rizik,Robert F Burke,Sabrina R Klassen,Ariana M Nigoghosian,Robert D Riley,Kevin P Gosselin,James A Goldstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101110

2023-10-19

Abstract:Background: This study of radiation exposure (RE) to physicians performing structural heart procedures evaluated the efficacy of a novel comprehensive radiation shield compared to those of traditional shielding methods. A novel comprehensive shielding system (Protego, Image Diagnostics Inc) has been documented to provide superior RE protection during coronary procedures compared to that provided by a standard "drop down" shield. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of this shield in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures, which are associated with disproportionate RE to operators. Methods: This single-center, 2-group cohort, observational analysis compared RE to the primary physician operator performing TAVR using the Protego shield (n = 25) with that using a standard drop-down shield with personal leaded apparel (n = 25). RE was measured at both thyroid and waist levels with a real-time dosimetry system (RaySafe i3, RaySafe) and was calculated on a mean per case basis. Data were collected on additional procedural parameters, including access site(s) for device implantation, per case fluoroscopy time, air kerma, and patient factors, including body mass index. Between-group comparisons were conducted to evaluate RE by group and measurement sites. Results: The Protego system reduced operator RE by 99% compared to that using standard protection. RE was significantly lower at both the thyroid level (0.08 ± 0.27 vs 79.2 ± 62.4 μSv; P < .001) and the waist level (0.70 ± 1.50 vs 162.0 ± 91.0 μSv, P < .001). "Zero" total RE was documented by RaySafe in 60% (n = 15) of TAVR cases using Protego. In contrast, standard protection did not achieve zero exposure in a single case. Conclusions: The Protego shield system provides superior operator RE protection during TAVR procedures. This shield allows operators to work without the need for personal lead aprons and has potential to reduce catheterization laboratory occupational health hazards.
Chinese Expert Consensus on the Construction of the Fluoroless Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory and Related Techniques.

Chenyang Jiang,Changsheng Ma,Songwen Chen,Shiquan Chen,Chenxi Jiang,Ruhong Jiang,Weizhu Ju,Deyong Long,Ding Li,Jia Li,Qiang Liu,Wei Ma,Xiaobo Pu,Rui Wang,Yuegang Wang,Fu Yi,Cao Zou,Jidong Zhang,Xi Zhang,Yujie Zhao,Paul C. Zei,Luigi Di Biase,Dong Chang,Heng Cai,Lianghua Chen,Minglong Chen,Guosheng Fu,Hua Fu,Jie Fan,Chun Gui,Tingbo Jiang,Shaowen Liu,Xuebin Li,Yigang Li,Maoqin Shu,Yan Wang,Jian Xu,Ruiqin Xie,Yunlong Xia,Yumei Xue,Pingzhen Yang,Yiqiang Yuan,Jingquan Zhong,Wenqing Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14782

2023-01-01

Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Abstract:Transcatheter radiofrequency ablation has been widely introduced for the treatment of tachyarrhythmias. The demand for catheter ablation continues to grow rapidly as the level of recommendation for catheter ablation. Traditional catheter ablation is performed under the guidance of X-rays. X-rays can help display the heart contour and catheter position, but the radiobiological effects caused by ionizing radiation and the occupational injuries worn caused by medical staff wearing heavy protective equipment cannot be ignored. Three-dimensional mapping system and intracardiac echocardiography can provide detailed anatomical and electrical information during cardiac electrophysiological study and ablation procedure, and can also greatly reduce or avoid the use of X-rays. In recent years, fluoroless catheter ablation technique has been well demonstrated for most arrhythmic diseases. Several centers have reported performing procedures in a purposefully designed fluoroless electrophysiology catheterization laboratory (EP Lab) without fixed digital subtraction angiography equipment. In view of the lack of relevant standardized configurations and operating procedures, this expert task force has written this consensus statement in combination with relevant research and experience from China and abroad, with the aim of providing guidance for hospitals (institutions) and physicians intending to build a fluoroless cardiac EP Lab, implement relevant technologies, promote the standardized construction of the fluoroless cardiac EP Lab.
Development of Lead-Free Materials for Radiation Shielding in Medical Settings: A Review

Arash Safari,Payman Rafie,Shahram Taeb,Masoud Najafi,Seyed Mohammad Javad Mortazavi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2404-1742

2024-06-01

Abstract:Radiation protection is an essential issue in diagnostic radiology to ensure the safety of patients, healthcare professionals, and the general public. Lead has traditionally been used as a shielding material due to its high atomic number, high density, and effectiveness in attenuating radiation. However, some concerns related to the long-term health effects of toxicity, environmental disease as well as heavy weight of lead have led to the search for alternative lead-free shielding materials. Leadfree multilayered polymer composites and non-lead nano-composite shields have been suggested as effective shielding materials to replace conventional lead-based and single metal shields. Using several elements with high density and atomic number, such as bismuth, barium, gadolinium, and tungsten, offer significant enhancements in the shielding ability of composites. This review focuses on the development and use of lead-free materials for radiation shielding in medical settings. It discusses the drawbacks of traditional lead shielding, such as toxicity, weight, and recycling challenges, and highlights the benefits of lead-free alternatives.
American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria on Cardiac Toxicity Prevention and Management After Thoracic Radiotherapy

Arya Amini,Vlad G Zaha,Eman Hamad,Pamela K Woodard,Andreas Rimner,Joe Y Chang,Stephen G Chun,Jessica Donington,Martin J Edelman,Matthew A Gubens,Kristin A Higgins,Puneeth Iyengar,Aditya Juloori,Benjamin Movsas,Matthew S Ning,Henry S Park,George Rodrigues,Andrea Wolf,Charles B Simone 2nd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2024.09.1433

2024-09-21

Abstract:Introduction: The multidisciplinary American Radium Society Thoracic Committee was assigned to create appropriate use criteria on cardiac toxicity prevention and management for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Methods: A systematic review of the current literature was conducted. Case variants of patients with thoracic malignancies undergoing radiation were created based on presence or absence of cardiovascular risk factors and treatment-related risks assessed by dose exposure to the heart and cardiac substructures. Modified Delphi methodology was used to evaluate the variants and procedures, with less than or equal to three rating points from median defining agreement/consensus. Results: A total of six variants were evaluated. The panel felt that patients with cardiac comorbidities at high risk for radiation-related cardiac toxicity should undergo a prescreening cardiac-focused history and physical (H&P) examination, electrocardiogram, cardiac imaging including an echocardiogram, and referral to a cardiologist/cardio-oncologist. Recommendations for those without cardiac comorbidities at low risk for cardiac toxicity were to undergo a baseline H&P examination only. Conversely, those without cardiac comorbidities but at high risk for radiation-related cardiac toxicity were recommended to undergo a prescreening electrocardiogram, in addition to a H&P examination. For patients with cardiac comorbidities at low risk for cardiac toxicity, the panel felt that prescreening and postscreening tests may be appropriate. Conclusions: The American Radium Society Thoracic appropriate use criteria panel has developed multidisciplinary consensus guidelines for cardiac toxicity prevention, surveillance, and management after thoracic radiotherapy based on cardiac comorbidities at presentation and risk of radiation-related cardiac toxicity.
A dual-centre study on the radioprotective effect of a novel X-ray protection device during coronary intervention

J Ma,K Liu,W Chen,T Wang,Z Xu,Y Li,B Zhao,L Zhou,F Wang,C Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2023.06.004

Abstract:Aim: To investigate the shielding efficiency of a novel X-ray protection device (NPD) compared with the traditional lead clothing (TLC) during coronary intervention. Materials and methods: This study was performed prospectively in two centres. A total of 200 coronary interventions were included and assigned equally into the NPD or TLC group. The NPD is a floor-standing X-ray protection device, which mainly composes of a barrel-like frame and two layers of lead rubber. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were adopted to detect the cumulative absorbed doses, and were attached outside the NPD or TLC or body of the first operator at four different height levels in four directions during the procedure. Results: The cumulative doses outside the NPD were comparable to that of the TLC (2,398.33 ± 2,341.64 versus 1,624.09 ± 1,732.20 μSv, p=0.366), and the cumulative doses inside the NPD were significantly lower than those inside the TLC (40 ± 0 versus 732.28 ± 919.83 μSv, p<0.001). As the TLC did not cover the calf segment of the operator, the area at 50 cm height from the floor in the TLC group was unshielded. The shielding efficiency of NPD was significantly higher than that of the TLC (98.2 ± 0.63% versus 52.11 ± 38.97%, p=0.021). Conclusion: The NPD has a significantly higher shielding efficacy than that of the TLC, in particular, it protects the operators' lower limb, liberates their lower body from wearing heavy lead apron, and may consequently reduce the radiation or body-load associated complications.
How We Would Treat Our Own Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Patient

Katherine L Zaleski,Mary Lyn Stein,Brian P Quinn,Viviane G Nasr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.08.035

2024-08-30

Abstract:The field of congenital cardiac catheterization (CCC) has changed dramatically since it began 8 decades ago. New techniques and devices have expanded the indications for interventional catheterization. Heart teams who care for patients in the pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory are confronted with a growing number of patients presenting for a wide range of increasingly technically challenging cases. Multiple societies have published expert guidelines for CCC management to provide recommendations for best practice. We reviewed risk stratification strategies for CCC and describe our institution's comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to the periprocedural management of patients with congenital heart disease undergoing cardiac catheterization, using the index case of a 6-year-old patient with multiple heart defects. We concluded that risk stratification and a comprehensive, multidisciplinary team approach that begins when a procedure is booked is essential to inform management and optimize outcomes. Clinical decision-making should be informed by expert guidelines and evolving risk stratification research.
Evaluation of lead aprons and their maintenance and management at our hospital

Mitsumasa Matsuda,Toshiyasu Suzuki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-016-2140-2

2016-02-03

Journal of Anesthesia

Abstract:Lead aprons are worn by medical workers to reduce the effects of the radiation doses to which they are exposed during radiography and surgery performed with radioscopic apparatus. Regarding the management of such aprons, the Radiation Protection Section of the Japanese Society of Radiological Technology issued the “Guidelines for the Management of Lead Aprons” in 2000, and common management criteria have been set for all institutions. However, we found that the lead aprons used in operating rooms had not been closely inspected before 2014 in our hospital. Thus, we examined the extent of damage of such aprons in our operation room via computed tomography (CT) scout imaging, as well as visual and tactile inspections. Although no abnormality was detected upon visual and tactile inspections, CT images revealed that protective aprons used for 6 years or more had damaged internal radiation shields, thus risking radiation exposure. In response to these results, we fully realized the need to examine the date of the initial use of currently used lead aprons, to routinely perform visual and tactile inspections, and to regularly evaluate the extent of damage to the internal radiation shields via fluoroscopy in cooperation with the radiation management section.

anesthesiology
Lightweight Lead Aprons: The Emperor's New Clothes in the Angiography Suite?

Ha Lu,Chris Boyd,Joe Dawson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.01.031

IF: 6.427

2019-05-01

European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:ObjectiveThe aim was to determine whether lead containing and lead free composite garments in current use provide the level of radiation protection stated by manufacturers.MethodsFifteen garments, produced by five different manufacturers using eight different composites, were randomly selected for testing from four hospitals in South Australia. Labelling, material composition, design, and condition of the garments were assessed by direct garment examination, garment label, and product information. Garment attenuation was tested in a simulated angiography suite using a Siemens Ysio Max digital Xray machine. The front and back panels of each garment were tested under direct beam at 100 kVp. A Perspex phantom was used to simulate the density and scatter properties of the human abdomen. The front panels of each garment were tested under scattered radiation at Xray tube voltages of 50 and 70 kVp.ResultsForty-seven per cent of front panels and 90% of back panels provided lower lead equivalence than claimed by the manufacturer. Twenty per cent of front panels and 62% of back panels tested did not meet the minimum International Electrotechnical Commission requirements for angiographic use. There was a 38 fold difference in front panel performance of garments to scatter radiation, which were all labelled 0.5 mm lead equivalence. 56% of garments had differences in scatter transmission of at least 49% when tested at 50 and 70 kVp.ConclusionThe results show that lead containing and lead free composite garments probably provide less radiation protection than manufacturer stated lead equivalence. The demonstrated wide variations in attenuation of scatter radiation are greater than previously reported. It was found that most garments failed to comply with labelling standards. The study highlights challenges in radiation shielding and the need to identify composites that consistently provide better attenuation per unit weight than lead.

surgery,peripheral vascular disease
A Review of Radiation Protection Apron For Health Facilities: With Focus On Lead Apron

,Kaptila Tonny,Ademola O.,,Afam U.,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59568/amjd-2023-12-3-08

2023-12-10

Abstract:In medical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, ionizing radiations are commonly used. The major radiations used are the X-rays and Gamma rays. The personnel working in the radiological facilities to carry out these procedures are supposed to be properly shielded from the harmful effects of these radiations. The currently used aprons are made up of Lead which is a heavy metal. Several studies have been documented showing that Lead aprons provide appropriate shielding against ionizing radiation. This is basically due to its chemical property being a heavy metal hence radiopaque. However, Lead apron has its disadvantages. This review is therefore focused on the disadvantages that come with the use of Lead aprons in medical procedures. Several literature reviews have highlighted these disadvantages which include; bulkiness as a result of Lead being a heavy metal, very expensive and therefore difficult for the government to avail to every radiological personnel across the country. Furthermore, it is toxic to the ecosystem due to its chemical nature. The texture of the Lead apron also inconveniences the wearer. These, in turn result into compromise amongst the radiological personnel by not putting them on during these procedures. Thus, exposing their bodies to these ionizing radiations which may cause either deterministic or stochastic effects. In conclusion, this paper suggests the need to investigate an alternative radiation shielding apron that is lighter, cheaper, ecofriendly and convenient to the wearer by using different materials and methods, such as the use of barium which provides a better radiation shielding as Lead.
Effectiveness of a new radiation protection system in the interventional radiology setting

Robin Etzel,Alexander M König,Boris Keil,Martin Fiebich,Andreas H Mahnken,Alexander M. König,Andreas H. Mahnken

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.006

IF: 4.531

2018-09-01

European Journal of Radiology

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine a new weightless-like radiation protection garment regarding its radiation protection efficacy and to compare it to a conventional two-piece apron suit plus thyroid collar and standard ancillary shields.MATERIAL AND METHODS: All measurements were carried out using a clinical angiography system with a standardized fluoroscopy protocol for different C-arm angulations. An anthropomorphic torso phantom served as a scattering body. In addition, an ionization chamber was used to measure the radiation exposure on five different representative heights and at two different positions of an examiner during a typical fluoroscopic-guided intervention.RESULTS: The new weightless-like radiation protection garment and the conventional protection concept showed a mean dose reduction of 98.1% (p < 0.01) and 90.1% (p < 0.01) when compared to no shielding, respectively. By adding ancillary shields to both systems, an average reduction of 99.0% (p < 0.01) and 98.2% (p < 0.01) was found. In addition, the efficacy of both systems varied depending on the height, the C-arm angulation and position of the examiner.CONCLUSION: Combined with ancillary shields as an overall protection system, the recently introduced weightless-like radiation protection garment showed a significant better radiation protection efficacy when compared to conventional radiation protection measures.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Design and Development of a Low-Cost, Less Weight, and Lead-Free Composite Materials for Radiation Shielding

Sivakumar Rajagopal,Suya Prem Anand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1149/10701.0989ecst

2022-04-24

ECS Transactions

Abstract:The paper analyzes the performance of various composite materials in the lead-free apron for radiation shielding in biomedical applications. The challenging task is to extend the duration of wearing an apron, reduce the weight, and increase the comfort level for physicians. The lead-free composite materials used an alternative to lead in an apron due to their excellent properties, such as mass attenuation coefficients, effectiveness against gamma radiation, flexibility and light weight, and absorption. The present study discusses different simulation software used to assess the properties of the shielding material against the radiation effects. At the end of the paper, the promising directions are presented for future research.

Implementing a 'Lead [Apron]-Free' Cardiac Catheterization: Current Status

Advancements in Cardiac Catheterization Safety: Novel Radiation Protection Approaches Redefining Occupational Health

A Novel Shielding Device for Cardiac Cath Labs

A novel comprehensive radiation shielding system eliminates need for personal lead aprons in the catheterization laboratory

Radiation Exposure Among Scrub Technologists and Nurse Circulators During Cardiac Catheterization: The Impact of Accessory Lead Shields

Radiation protection during hybrid procedures: innovation creates new challenges

Quantifying and minimizing radiation exposure during pediatric cardiac catheterization

700.06 Comprehensive Radiation Shield Minimizes Operator Radiation Exposure and Obviates Need for Lead Aprons in Coronary and Structural Intervention

Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology

Radiation Exposure Using Rampart vs Standard Lead Aprons and Shields During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures

Comprehensive Shielding System Enhances Radiation Protection for Structural Heart Procedures

Chinese Expert Consensus on the Construction of the Fluoroless Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory and Related Techniques.

Development of Lead-Free Materials for Radiation Shielding in Medical Settings: A Review

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria on Cardiac Toxicity Prevention and Management After Thoracic Radiotherapy

A dual-centre study on the radioprotective effect of a novel X-ray protection device during coronary intervention

How We Would Treat Our Own Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Patient

Evaluation of lead aprons and their maintenance and management at our hospital

Lightweight Lead Aprons: The Emperor's New Clothes in the Angiography Suite?

A Review of Radiation Protection Apron For Health Facilities: With Focus On Lead Apron

Effectiveness of a new radiation protection system in the interventional radiology setting

Design and Development of a Low-Cost, Less Weight, and Lead-Free Composite Materials for Radiation Shielding