Effectiveness of additional X-ray protection devices in reducing Scattered radiation in radial interventions: protocol of the ESPRESSO randomised trial

Remzi Anadol, Moritz Brandt, Nico Merz, Maike Knorr, Majid Ahoopai, Martin Geyer, Damian Krompiec, Phillip Wenzel, Thomas Münzel, Tommaso Gori, Remzi Anadol, Moritz Brandt, Nico Merz, Maike Knorr, Majid Ahoopai, Martin Geyer, Damian Krompiec, Phillip Wenzel, Thomas Münzel, Tommaso Gori

Abstract

Background: A number of devices have been developed to minimise operator radiation exposure in the setting of cardiac catheterisation. The effectiveness of these devices has traditionally been explored in transfemoral coronary procedures; however, less is known for the transradial approach. We set out to examine the impact of three different radiation protection devices in a real-world setting.

Methods and design: Consecutive coronary diagnostic and intervention procedures are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to a shield-only protection (shield group), shield and overlapping 0.5 mm Pb panel curtain (curtain group) or shield, curtain and additional 75×40 cm, 0.5 mm Pb drape placed across the waist of the patient (drape group).The primary outcome is the difference in relative exposure of the primary operator among groups. Relative exposure is defined as the ratio between operator's exposure (E in μSv) and patient exposure (dose area product in cGy·cm2).

Ethics and dissemination: The protocol complies with good clinical practice and the ethical principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the local ethics committee. The results of the trial will be published as original article(s) in medical journals and/or as presentation at congresses.

Trial registration number: NCT03634657.

Keywords: coronary heart disease; coronary intervention; radiation biology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic representation of the three interventions. The shield (red), curtain (blue) and drape (orange) are presented.

References

    1. Elmaraezy A, Ebraheem Morra M, Tarek Mohammed A, et al. . Risk of cataract among interventional cardiologists and catheterization lab staff: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017;90:1–9. 10.1002/ccd.27114
    1. Picano E, Vano E. The radiation issue in cardiology: the time for action is now. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2011;9:35 10.1186/1476-7120-9-35
    1. Roguin A. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a call for alarm? Eur Heart J 2012;33:1850–1.
    1. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention 2012;7:1081–6. 10.4244/EIJV7I9A172
    1. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, et al. . Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol 2013;111:1368–72. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060
    1. 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;157:118–24. 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.009
    1. Jacob S, Boveda S, Bar O, et al. . Interventional cardiologists and risk of radiation-induced cataract: results of a French multicenter observational study. Int J Cardiol 2013;167:1843–7. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.04.124
    1. Karatasakis A, Brilakis HS, Danek BA, et al. . Radiation-associated lens changes in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Results from the IC-CATARACT (CATaracts Attributed to RAdiation in the CaTh lab) study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018;91:647–54. 10.1002/ccd.27173
    1. Delewi R, Hoebers LP, Råmunddal T, et al. . Clinical and procedural characteristics associated with higher radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary angiography. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:501–6. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000220
    1. Kuipers G, Delewi R, Velders XL, et al. . Radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary angiograms performed by the radial compared with the femoral route. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:752–7. 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.03.020
    1. Simard T, Hibbert B, Natarajan MK, et al. . Impact of center experience on patient radiation exposure during transradial coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention: a patient-level, international, collaborative, multi-center analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5 10.1161/JAHA.116.003333
    1. Kherad B, Jerichow T, Blaschke F, et al. . Efficacy of RADPAD protective drape during coronary angiography. Herz 2018;43:310–4. 10.1007/s00059-017-4560-7
    1. Murphy JC, Darragh K, Walsh SJ, et al. . Efficacy of the RADPAD protective drape during real world complex percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Am J Cardiol 2011;108:1408–10. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.061
    1. Politi L, Biondi-Zoccai G, Nocetti L, et al. . Reduction of scatter radiation during transradial percutaneous coronary angiography: a randomized trial using a lead-free radiation shield. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;79:97–102. 10.1002/ccd.22947
    1. Shah P, Khanna R, Kapoor A, et al. . Efficacy of RADPAD protection drape in reducing radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory-First Indian study. Indian Heart J 2018;70(Suppl 3):S265–S268. 10.1016/j.ihj.2018.03.008
    1. Vlastra W, Delewi R, Sjauw KD, et al. . Efficacy of the RADPAD protection drape in reducing operators' radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory: a sham-controlled randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006058
    1. Wagner LK, Mulhern OR. Radiation-attenuating surgical gloves: effects of scatter and secondary electron production. Radiology 1996;200:45–8. 10.1148/radiology.200.1.8657942
    1. Badawy MK, Deb P, Chan R, et al. . A review of radiation protection solutions for the staff in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Heart Lung Circ 2016;25:961–7. 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.02.021
    1. Barman N, Dangas GD. Transfemoral PCI skill: Use it or lose it.…. But #RadialFirst. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018;92:842–3. 10.1002/ccd.27938
    1. Nardin M, Verdoia M, Barbieri L, et al. . Radial vs Femoral Approach in acute coronary syndromes: a meta- analysis of randomized trials. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 2017;16:79–92. 10.2174/1570161115666170504125831
    1. Kolkailah AA, Alreshq RS, Muhammed AM, et al. . Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;4:CD012318 10.1002/14651858.CD012318.pub2
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2013;2015:506–14.
    1. Bauer P. Multistage testing with adaptive designs. Biom and Inf in Med and Biol 1989;20:130–6.
    1. O’Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979;35:549–56. 10.2307/2530245

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever