Efficacy of MAVIG X-Ray Protective Drapes in Reducing CTO Operator Radiation

Keir McCutcheon, Maarten Vanhaverbeke, Jérémie Dabin, Ruben Pauwels, Werner Schoonjans, Walter Desmet, Johan Bennett, Keir McCutcheon, Maarten Vanhaverbeke, Jérémie Dabin, Ruben Pauwels, Werner Schoonjans, Walter Desmet, Johan Bennett

Abstract

Background: The MAVIG X-ray protective drape (MXPD) has been shown to reduce operator radiation dose during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Whether MXPDs are also effective in reducing operator radiation during chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI, often with dual access, is unknown.

Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized-controlled study comparing operator radiation dose during CTO PCI (n = 60) with or without pelvic MXPDs. The primary outcomes were the difference in first operator radiation dose (μSv) and relative dose of the first operator (radiation dose normalized for dose area product) at the level of the chest in the two groups. The effectiveness of MXPD in CTO PCI was compared with non-CTO PCI using a patient-level pooled analysis with a previously published non-CTO PCI randomized study.

Results: The use of the MXPD was associated with a 37% reduction in operator dose (weighted median dose 26.0 (IQR 10.00-29.47) μSv in the drape group versus 41.8 (IQR 30.82-60.59) μSv in the no drape group; P < 0.001) and a 60% reduction in relative operator dose (median dose 3.5 (IQR 2.5-5.4) E/DAPx10-3 in the drape group versus 8.6 (IQR 4.2-12.5) E/DAPx10-3 in the no drape group; P=0.001). MXPD was equally effective in reducing operator dose in CTO PCI compared with non-CTO PCI (P value for interaction 0.963).

Conclusions: The pelvic MAVIG X-ray protective drape significantly reduced CTO operator radiation dose. This trial is clinically registered with https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier: NCT04285944).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2021 Keir McCutcheon et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Median and interquartile ranges for procedure time (defined as the time from sheath-in to catheter-out), fluoroscopy time, air kerma, and dose area product (DAP) in all procedures and in the two groups. Bars represent median values with interquartile range.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Median operator chest dose and relative operator chest dose normalized for dose area product (x10−3). Bars represent median values with interquartile range.

References

    1. Werner G. S., Avran A., Mashayekhi K., et al. Radiation exposure for percutaneous interventions of chronic total coronary occlusions in a multicenter registry: the influence of operator variability and technical set-up. Journal of Invasive Cardiology . 2021;33(3):E146–e154.
    1. Alazzoni A., Gordon C. L., Syed J., et al. Randomized controlled trial of radiation protection with a patient lead shield and a novel, nonlead surgical cap for operators performing coronary angiography or intervention. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions . 2015;8 doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002384.e002384
    1. Vlastra W., Delewi R., Sjauw K. D., et al. Efficacy of the RADPAD protection drape in reducing operators’ radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory: a sham-controlled randomized trial. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions . 2017;10 doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006058.
    1. McCutcheon K., Vanhaverbeke M., Pauwels R., et al. Efficacy of MAVIG X-ray protective drapes in reducing operator radiation dose in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a randomized controlled trial. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions . 2020;13 doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009627.e009627
    1. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Annals of the ICRP . 2007;37:1–332.
    1. IOS. X and gamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemeters and doserate meters and for determining their response as a function of photon energy—part 4: calibration of area and personal dosemeters in low energy x reference radiation fields. 2019. .
    1. Murphy J. C., Darragh K., Walsh S. J., Hanratty C. G. Efficacy of the RADPAD protective drape during real world complex percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. The American Journal of Cardiology . 2011;108(10):1408–1410. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.061.
    1. Shorrock D., Christopoulos G., Wosik J., et al. Impact of a disposable sterile radiation shield on operator radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions. Journal of Invasive Cardiology . 2015;27(7):313–316. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(15)61779-x.
    1. Marcusohn E., Postnikov M., Musallam A., et al. Usefulness of pelvic radiation protection shields during transfemoral procedures-operator and patient considerations. The American Journal of Cardiology . 2018;122(6):1098–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.06.003.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner