European Heart Journal Advance Access published online on November 13, 2007
European Heart Journal, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm508
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes
1 Service de Cardiologie, hôpital Robert Debré, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, 51092 Reims cedex, France
2 Unite de Radiophysique Médicale et de radioprotection, hôpital Robert Debré, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, 51092 Reims cedex, France
3 Centre de Recherche, d'Investigation Clinique et d'Aide Méthodologique, Cour d'honneur, hôpital Maison Blanche, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, 51092 Reims cedex, France
Received 23 April 2007; revised 10 September 2007; accepted 9 October 2007.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +33 3 26 78 70 20; fax: +33 3 26 78 41 32. E-mail address: camille.brasselet{at}wanadoo.fr
Aims: Although underestimated by interventional cardiologists for a long time, radiation exposure of operators and patients is currently a major concern. The objective of the present operator-blinded registry was to compare related-peripheral arterial route radiation exposure of operators.
Methods and results: During 420 consecutive coronary angiograms (CAs) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), four interventional cardiologists were blindly screened. Radiation exposures were assessed using electronic personal dosimeters. Protection of operator was ensured using a lead apron, low leaded flaps, and leaded glass. Radiation exposure of operators was significantly higher using the radial route when compared with the femoral route for both CAs and CAs followed by ad hoc PCIs: 29.0 [1.0–195.0] µSv vs. 13.0 [1.0–164.0] µSv; P < 0.0001 and 69.5 [4.0–531.0] µSv vs. 41.0 [2.0–360.0] µSv; P = 0.018, respectively. Similarly, radiation exposure of patients was significantly higher using the radial route when compared with the femoral route for both CAs and CAs followed by ad hoc PCIs. Moreover, procedural durations and fluoroscopy times were significantly higher throughout the radial route.
Conclusion: Although the radial route decreases peripheral arterial complication rates, increased radiation exposure of operators despite extensive use of specific protection devices is currently a growing problem for the interventional cardiologist health. Radial route indication should be promptly reconsidered in the light of the present findings.
Key Words: Percutaneous coronary intervention • Radial artery • Stent • Operator radiation exposure
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Agostoni, L. Testa, and G. G.L. Biondi-Zoccai Comment on '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., September 30, 2008; (2008) ehn430v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Pristipino Radial artery catheterization and radiological exposure Eur. Heart J., September 2, 2008; 29(18): 2316 - 2317. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. S. Lo, A. G. Zaman, R. Stables, D. Fraser, K. G. Oldryod, D. Hildick-Smith, and J. Nolan 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., September 1, 2008; 29(17): 2180 - 2180. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Hamon and A. Sourgounis Radiation exposure and vascular access site Eur. Heart J., April 1, 2008; 29(7): 954 - 954. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Brasselet and D. Metz Radiation exposure and vascular access site: reply Eur. Heart J., April 1, 2008; 29(7): 954 - 955. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|