Decreasing operators' radiation exposure during coronary procedures: The transradial radiation protection board

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 79-84

  Behan, Miles ^a   Haworth, Peter ^a   Colley, Paul ^a   Brittain, Michael ^a   Hince, Andrew ^a   Clarke, Michael ^a   Ghuran, Azad ^a   Saha, Mrinal ^a   Hildick Smith, David ^a  

^a UK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Diagnostic cardiac catheterization; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Radiation physics

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSIMETRY; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FILM DOSIMETER; HEART CATHETERIZATION; INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; RADIAL ARTERY; RADIATION PROTECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME; UNITED KINGDOM;

AGED; CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; ENGLAND; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FILM DOSIMETRY; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PROTECTIVE DEVICES; RADIAL ARTERY; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77954252524     PISSN: 15221946     EISSN: 1522726X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22466     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2009;157: 132-140.
2. Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, De Benedictis ML, et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:349-356.
3. Hildick-Smith DJR, Walsh JT, Lowe MD, Shapiro LM, Petch MC. Transradial coronary angiography in patients with contraindications to the femoral approach: An analysis of 500 cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004;61:60-66.
4. Kiemeneij F, Laarman JG, Oderkerken DG, et al. A randomised comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: The access study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:1269-1275. (Pubitemid 27201945)
5. Mann T, Cubedda G, Bowen J, et al. Stenting in acute coronary syndromes: A comparison of radial versus femoral access sites. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:572-576. (Pubitemid 28435238)
6. Cantor WJ, Mahaffey KW, Huang Z, et al. Bleeding complications in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early invasive management can be reduced with radial access, smaller sheath sizes, and timely sheath removal. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69:73-80.
7. Chase AJ, Fretz EB, Warburton WP, et al. Association of arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality. The M.O.R.T.A.L. study: (Mortality benefit of reduced transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the arm or leg). Heart 2008;94:1019-1025.
8. Hamon M, Nolan J. Should radial access be the 'gold standard' for PCI? Heart 2008;94:1530-1532.
9. Brasselet C, Blanpain T, Tassan-Mangina S, et al. Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention by radial and femoral routes. Eur Heart J 2008;29:63-70.
10. Lange HW, von Boetticher H. Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;67:12-16.
11. Yigit F, Sezgin AT, Erol T, et al. An experience on radial versus femoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography in Turkey. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 2006;6:229-234. (Pubitemid 44390479)
12. Sandborg M, Fransson SG, Pettersson H. Evaluation of patient-absorbed doses during coronary angiography and intervention by femoral and radial access. Eur Radiol 2004;14:653-658. (Pubitemid 38444579)
13. Larrazet F, Dibie A, Philippe F, et al. Factors influencing time and dose-curve product values during ad hoc one-vessel percutaneous coronary angioplasty. Br J Radiol 2003;76:473-477. (Pubitemid 36903362)
14. Lo TS, Zaman AG, Stables R, et al. Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes. Eur Heart J 2008;29:2180-2181.
15. Kuon E, Scmitt M, Dahm JB. Significant reduction of radiation exposure to operator and staff during cardiac interventions by analysis of radiation leakage and improved lead shielding. Am J Cardiol 2002;89:44-49. (Pubitemid 34066585)
16. Vano E. Radiation exposure to cardiologists: How it could be reduced. Heart 2003;89:1123-1124.
17. Kuon E. Radiation exposure in invasive cardiology. Heart 2008;94:667-674.
18. Venneri L, Rossi F, Botto N, et al. Cancer risk from professional exposure in staff working in cardiac catheterization laboratory: Insights from the National Research Council's Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII Report. Am Heart J 2009;157:118-124.
19. Vano E, Gonzalez L, Fernandez JM, et al. Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: A 15-year follow up. Br J Radiol 2006;79:383-388.
20. Hirshfield JW, Balter S, Brinker JA, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS/ SCAI Clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimise patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/ American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. Circulation 2005;111:511-532.