1-877-7RADPAD     info@radpad.com

Tag: Medical Device Companies

radiation-protection-products
RADPAD® Radiation Products Protect Healthcare Providers and Patients

RADPAD® Radiation Products Protect Healthcare Providers and Patients

Posted on March 18, 2019 by in Uncategorized with no comments

RADPAD® Absorbs Scatter Radiation

RADPAD® Radiation Protection Shields are used by physicians and cath lab personnel during fluoro-guided procedures to protect them from the harmful effects of ionizing x-radiation. Placed on the patient in front of the operator, RADPAD® works by absorbing scatter radiation coming from the patient and creating a “shade zone” for the cath lab team to work in during interventional procedures. All RADPAD® Radiation Protection Products are non-lead and PVC-free products. They are procedure specific and designed for single use.

RADPAD-radiation-protection
radpad-radiation-protection
radpad-in-use

Physician Protection

Sterile, disposable RADPAD® Radiation Protection Products are placed directly on the patient to protect the operator and cath lab personnel during fluoro-guided procedures from harmful scatter radiation. They are backed by 30 clinical studies and proven in thousands of hospitals on a daily basis worldwide

RADPAD® 5000 series products are comprised of several procedure-specific radiation protection shields designed to provide maximum protection to the operator and cath lab personnel during fluoro-guided procedures

RADPAD® 7000 series are comprised of several procedures specific sterile drape + RADPAD® Radiation Protection Shields, designed to protect operators and cath lab personnel during fluoro-guided procedures

RADPAD® 9000 series of Personal Protection Products are comprised of products worn by the operator and cath lab personnel to for additional protection during fluoro or CT guided procedures. These products include:

  • RADPAD® No Brainer®  is an attenuation material-lined scrub cap worn by the cath lab personnel to protect their brain from scatter radiation during fluoro-guided procedures
  • RADPAD® Thyroid Shield w/ Cover is a RADPAD® thyroid shield worn by the cath lab personnel to protect thyroid glands during fluoro-guided procedures
  • RADPAD® Radiation Protection Sleeve is a full arm-length cover worn the operator during CT guided procedures

Additional Products

RADPAD® Table Skirts w/ Anchor are table skirts that anchor to the table in the cath lab to block scatter radiation coming from below the table

 

Patient Protection

RADPAD® Specialty Shields: Shields of various shapes and sizes used to protect the patient during fluoro guided, interventional radiology, electrophysiology, and cardiac cath examinations

RADPAD® Patient Protection Pads: Pads used underneath the lower or upper body during fluoro-guided procedures

RADPAD® Body Guard Sets: Wraps fitted for adults, children, and infants used to protect the brain, thyroid, upper and lower body during CT examinations

 

Testimony of Clinical Need for Radiation Protection

“72 million CT scans are performed annually in the United States, which is about one scan for every four people in the country…which could account for roughly 29,000 future cancer cases each year!”¹

“In 2013, a scientific consensus was reached that even just one CT scan in childhood is linked to the risk of developing future cancers.”²

“Even 15 or more years after the first exposure to ionizing radiation from CT scan, cancer risks remain elevated by 24%.”³

Sterile, disposable RADPAD® Radiation Protection Products are placed directly on the patient to protect the operator and cath lab personnel during fluoro-guided procedures from harmful scatter radiation. They are backed by 30 clinical studies and proven in thousands of hospitals on a daily basis worldwide.


Contact Us or send inquiries to info@radpad.com for a free No Brainer™ surgical cap sample.

 

The original article appeared on https://www.medalliancegroup.com/product/radpad/.
RADPAD-scatter-radiation-protectio
Radiation Exposure May Increase Alzheimer’s Risk– How Can You Stay Protected?

Radiation Exposure May Increase Alzheimer’s Risk– How Can You Stay Protected?

Posted on June 11, 2018 by in Uncategorized with no comments

June is National Alzheimer’s & Brain Awareness Month. More than five million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s, and deaths caused by the disease have increased by 89% since 20001. Clinical studies have shown that exposure to low and high doses of ionizing radiation can be a risk factor in developing Alzheimer’s2.

The RADPAD® from Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc. is a sterile shield comprised of specially developed radiation attenuating material, clinically-proven to protect both physicians and patients from the harmful effects of scatter radiation during fluoro-guided procedures and CT scans. The RADPAD® works by absorbing scatter radiation that is projected from the patient, as well as creates a “shade zone” for cath lab personnel so they are protected during interventional procedures. (Insert the picture showing the “shade zone” by this paragraph)

The RADPAD® No Brainer®, an attenuation material-lined scrub cap, is worn by physicians in the cath lab to protect the brain from scatter radiation during fluoro-guided procedures.

The No Brainer

The No Brainer

The RADPAD® Body Guard Sets, which are wraps fitted for adults, children, and infants, contain a separate wrap to protect the patient’s brain during CT examinations.

The RADPAD® is also important for protecting both physicians and patients from the increased risk of cancer due to exposure to radiation. In a clinical study, results showed that cancer risks from radiation remain elevated by 24% even after 15+ years of the first exposure3.

For more information on the RADPAD®, contact your local MED Alliance Group Sales Representative, call 888-891-1200 or email us.

 

1 “2017 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures.” alz.org®, 2017, http://www.alz.org/facts/overview.asp.

2 Begum, Nasrin; Mori, Masahiko; Vares, Guillaume; Wang, Bing. “Does ionizing radiation influence Alzheimer’s disease risk?” US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. vol. 53., no. 6, 2012, pp. 815-822.

3 Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, et al, Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computer tomography scan in childhood or adolescence data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 2013; 346:f2360.


CONTACT US

Send inquiries to info@radpad.com for a free No Brainer™ sample. The No Brainer™ blocks up to 95% of radiation exposure to the brain. Lightweight, adjustable protection for all O.R. suite and fluoro lab personnel during interventional procedures.

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730 or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)
Fax: 913-648-0131
Unknown
interventional-radiology-5511-in-use3-thumb
RADPAD® Safety News:  Radiation Exposure in Cath Lab Depends on Shield Placement

RADPAD® Safety News: Radiation Exposure in Cath Lab Depends on Shield Placement

Posted on February 19, 2018 by in Safety with no comments

MedPage Today and the American Heart Association collaborated on an insightful article explaining the importance of shield placement in the reduction of scatter radiation exposure:

 

MEDPAGE TODAY ®

Cardiology

Radiation Exposure in Cath Lab Depends on Shield Placement

by Chris Kaiser

Cardiology Editor, MedPage Today October 17, 2011

 

This article is a collaboration between MedPage Today® and:

Screen Shot 2018-02-19 at 2.07.31 PMlife is why

Interventional cardiologists are at greatest risk of scatter radiation exposure compared with other personnel in the cath lab, but their risk can be significantly reduced with the optimal placement of radiation shielding, researchers found.

A ceiling-mounted upper body shield protected best from scatter radiation when it was positioned tight to the patient’s body and just toward the head from the femoral access point, reported Kenneth A. Fetterly, PhD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

However, a difference of 5 cm away from the patient’s body and 20 cm closer to the x­ ray tube resulted in a fourfold reduction in protection, according to the study in Oct. 25 Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“That the most advantageous shield positioning can have a greater than fourfold relative reduction in scatter radiation exposure, supports its use even when inconvenient, and suggests that learning to coordinate multiple shields should be among the fundamental principles taught in every interventional cardiology training program,” wrote Lloyd W. Klein, MD, and Justin Maroney, MD, from Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in Chicago, in an accompanying editorial.

Klein and Maroney noted that the design of the interventional suite has remained stagnant over the past few decades even as innovations in techniques and devices have soared. And because optimal placement of shielding “continues to be operator­ dependent,” it requires a deliberate effort on the part of cath lab personnel to place shield s.

To determine how best to protect against scatter radiation, which occurs when the primary x-ray beam interacts with patient tissue and changes direction, investigators tested four different shielding models individually and in com binat ion:

 

  • A ceiling-mounted upper body shield

 

  • A table side rail-mounted lower body shield

 

  • An accessory vertical shield that mounts as an upper extension of the lower body shield

 

  • A disposable radiation-absorbing pad

 

Researchers used anthropomorphic phantoms through which they directed the x-ray beam in a straight posterior-anterior posit ion.

They measured the scatter radiation from three common physician positions corresponding to standard right femoral art ery, right jugular vein, and left anterior thoracic access point s.

Results showed that maximum protection was provided at the femoral artery access position compared with the other two access points.

When the ceiling-mounted upper body shield was moved away from the patient’s body by 5 cm, and moved more cephalad from the femoral access point by 20 cm, the protective benefit to the middle and upper body went from greater than 80% to less than 20%.

The accessory vertical extension to the lower body shield provided between 25% and 90% additional protection at heights in the range of 100 cm to 150 cm. The disposable pad also provided extra upper body protection, in the range of 55% to 70%.

Researchers found that the combined use of the table apron with vertical extension and the upper body shield resulted in “at least 80% protection at all elevations and 90% protection for elevations below 150 cm” at the femoral access point.

Regarding protection from the right jugular vein and left anterior thoracic access points, testing showed that the lower body shield provided better than 90% reduction in scatter exposure, but no upper body protection, while the disposable pad provided lower body protection and only modest upper body protection (between 40% to 70%).

The upper body shield also interfered with the x-ray receptor and patient access when the right jugular vein access point was used, and it interfered with patient access from the anterior thoracic access point. Patient interference was common with the vertical extension as well.

“A major finding of this work is that the upper body protection provided by the ceiling­ mounted upper body shield is highly dependent on precise positioning,” researchers wrote.

“Note that conventional wisdom is that shields should be placed close to the source of radiation to maximize the size of the protective ‘radiation shadow’ of the shield. Properly positioning the upper body shield requires the opposite mindset,” Fetterly and colleagues said.

Klein and Maroney echoed this sentiment, saying the shield should be used “as one would use an umbrella in wind-driven rain: the closer to the operator’s body the more eff ect ive.”

Limitations of the study included the use of only the posterior-anterior projections, and the lack of an analysis of radiation scatter when involved with the treatment of abdominal and peripheral vessels.

 

The study authors and the editorialists reported relationships relevant to the contents of the study or editorial.

 Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD Em er itus Professor

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN , BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner 

Primary Source

JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

Source Reference: Fetterly, KA et al “Effective use of radiation shields to minimize operator dose during invasive cardiology procedures” J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2011; 4: 1133-1139.

Secondary Source

JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

Source Reference : Klein LW, et al “Optimizing operator protection by proper radiation shield positioning in the interventional cardiology suite” J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2011;4:1140-1141.


CONTACT US

Send inquiries to info@radpad.com for a free No Brainer™ sample. The No Brainer™ blocks up to 95% of radiation exposure to the brain. Lightweight, adjustable protection for all O.R. suite and fluoro lab personnel during interventional procedures.

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730 or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)
Fax: 913-648-0131
Unknown

 

x-ray-radiation-protection-sleeve
Scatter Radiation is Unavoidable, Physician Protection is Not

Scatter Radiation is Unavoidable, Physician Protection is Not

Posted on November 27, 2017 by in Products, Safety with no comments

Protecting Hospital Staff During Fluoro-Guided Procedures

Radiation Therapy is a powerful tool in medicine, especially when used to treat cancer. Radiation works by killing and slowing the growth of cancer cells – but it can also damage healthy cells in the process, which can increase the risk of developing cancer in the future.

In 2017, approximately 80,000 new cases of brain tumors are expected to be diagnosed, with roughly 26,000 of those being malignant cases.^1 This depicts brain and other central nervous system cancer as the 10th leading cause of death in both men and women, and an estimated 16,700 individuals are expected to die from primary brain cancer this year. ^2

 

RADPAD® Radiation protection Products

While healthcare providers are diligent in their efforts to keep patients safe from scatter radiation, it is also important for providers to consider their safety when performing these procedures. Scatter radiation is secondary radiation that deflects from an object, most commonly the patient, during procedures, and can affect the healthcare provider’s brain in the process.

RADPAD® from Worldwide Innovations & Technologies is a full line of radiation protection products that are dedicated to protecting hospital staff during fluoro-guided procedures.

The No Brainer

The No Brainer®

The RADPAD® No Brainer® is an attenuation material-lined scrub cap worn by cath lab personnel that protects the brain from scatter radiation during fluoro-guided procedures.

 

x-ray-protection-thyroid-collar

Thyroid Collar

 

The RADPAD® is also available as a thyroid shield and a full-length protection sleeve to cover the neck and arms of the physician during these procedures.

 

RADPAD-table-skirt

Table Skirt with Anchor

The RADPAD® Table Skirt anchors to the table in the cath lab to block scatter radiation that flows from below the table, and the RADPAD® Specialty Shields create a shade zone where the physician can work from.

To learn more about how you can protect yourself and your patients with the RADPAD®, contact us:

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730 or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)
Fax: 913-648-0131

Unknown


1 http://www.abta.org/about-us/news/brain-tumor-statistics/?referrer=https://www.google.com/

2 http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/brain-tumor/statistics

revascularization-of-limbs
RADPAD Presents: Using the Venous System to Re-Vascularize Limbs

RADPAD Presents: Using the Venous System to Re-Vascularize Limbs

Posted on October 4, 2017 by in Other Stories, Procedures with no comments

This is an extremely interesting article on using the venous system to re-vascularize “cold feet” and the challenges that come with the process. Saving limbs has become the rally cry for vascular surgeons around the world. They know that the patient’s chances for any long term success are tied to keeping their limbs.


Update on the Novel AV Reversal Therapy for End-Stage CLI

CLI Perspectives is headed by section editor J.A. Mustapha, MD, Metro Health Hospital, Wyoming, Michigan.

Dr. Mustapha interviews Steven Kum, MBBS, FRCS, Novena Vascular & Varicose Vein Centre, Mount Elizabeth Hospital; Director of Vascular Services, Department of Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore.

 

Introduction

J.A. Mustapha, MD

End-stage critical limb ischemia (CLI) is what we refer to as patients who have had revascularization attempts and are still facing major amputation. These patients are also referred to as Rutherford 6. During recent presentations at the 2016 Amputation Prevention Symposium (AMP) and 2016 Vascular InterVentional Advances (VIVA) conferences, Dr. George Adams and Dr. Jihad Mustapha presented data from the LIBERTY trial that showed 78% of Rutherford 6 patient were discharged home within 27 hours after endovascular revascularization, without limb loss. Their 30-day follow-up visit showed a similar high number of patients with their target limb still intact. Is it time to reconsider the fate of patients with Rutherford 6 and consider drastic forms of revascularizations prior to major amputations? Dr. Steven Kum of Singapore believes that patients with end-stage disease can still benefit from a unique procedure called arterial venous flow reversal. Dr. Kum, a vascular surgeon, developed an endovascular procedure to not only create the fistula, but also allow the venous conduit to arterialize over time.

J.A. Mustapha, MD: Can you explain the arterial venous flow reversal (AVR) concept?

Steven Kum, MBBS: Thanks, Jihad, for the invitation to contribute. Well, essentially, if we have an arterial system that cannot be opened, we preferentially pressurize the venous system and route oxygenated blood flow through this system. It’s a little analogous to traffic between two cities. Should a freeway be unserviceable in one direction, we hop over to the other side of the road to take advantage of the undiseased path (i.e., the veins) to reach where we want to go. This flow is reversed not only in the major veins, but also the smaller veins in the foot.

Dr. Mustapha: Can you explain the physiological changes that happen and the time frames for the changes?

Dr. Kum: Flow reversal is not a new concept. It is still occasionally done in the coronary system during a coronary bypass when the surgeon has to perform retrograde perfusion. There have been many reports in the past of surgical venous arterialization and contemporary surgical series are encouraging. We are still trying to understand the physiological changes. Immediately after flow reversal, arterialization of the veins and pressurization of the venous system occurs. We believe that this pressurization leads to oxygenation of the capillary bed.

Dr. Mustapha: To date, how many cases have been performed at your center and how many do you predict have been performed worldwide?

Dr. Kum: We have performed just under 15 cases in our center, but I have been closely involved in several European centers with a U.S. feasibility trial starting soon this year. I anticipate that as we push beyond the extreme interventions that we are already now doing, we are in a sense victims of our own success and will see more of these patients with end-stage disease. Preventing amputations saves legs and lives, but together with better medical therapy, our patients are surviving longer and have more severe disease every time we re-intervene. This may offer a solution for the global CLI pandemic.

Dr. Mustapha: Can you describe the technical procedure and give an understanding of the end results?

Dr. Kum: We have started using the LimFlow system (LimFlow SA) to do percutaneous deep venous arterialization (DVA) for several years now. The AV flow reversal leads to DVA.

Essentially, after antegrade 7 French (F) access and retrograde 5F venous access under ultrasound guidance, we do a double injection angiogram of both the artery and the veins at the intended area of crossing between the artery and the vein (the “crossover point”). After sufficient pre-dilatation, a 7F catheter (the “A” catheter), housing an ultrasound-emitting crystal is introduced into the artery in an antegrade fashion and positioned adjacent to the crossover point. Similarly, a 5F venous catheter (the “V” catheter), housing an ultrasound-receiving crystal, is introduced via the retrograde 5F sheath and positioned adjacent to the “A” catheter. With the help of a computer system, the 2 catheters are aligned. A needle system moves between the artery and vein followed by a wire, creating the arteriovenous fistula (AVF).  The AVF is then ordinated and matured with a covered stent. Subsequent covered stents are used to serve as an endovenous conduit to drive a large volume of blood to the ankle. These covered stents serve to cover the numerous venous branches/collaterals that may “bleed off” the flow towards the heart rather than down to the foot. A key obstacle to the blood flowing to the foot is the valves in the foot. These impediments are, in my opinion, best addressed with a valve cutter. The team at LimFlow has designed a unique tool to address this issue percutaneously.

Dr. Mustapha: How do you determine if a patient is a good candidate for the procedure? 

Dr. Kum: We must remember that the patients we have selected are end-stage CLI patients. This implies that they have no reasonable endovascular or open surgical bypass options for revascularization. As peripheral arterial disease is a systemic disease, we would expect the same disease process in the other vascular beds.  Coupled with the advanced age of these patients, we could say these patients are fragile. Clinical selection of these patients relies heavily on good old clinical evaluation and some tests. In general, heart function should be more than 40%, and renal function reasonable. The extent of soft tissue loss and infection should not be too severe and we rely on the Society of Vascular Surgery Wound, Ischemia and foot Infection (WIfI) classification system to guide us on the suitability of these patients.

In addition, several other angiographic and sonographers criteria should be met.  The target vein for retrograde access should be greater than 3 mm in size, and the inflow artery just proximal to the crossing point should be greater than 3.5 mm in diameter, especially in calcified vessels. This means that aggressive pre dilatation of the inflow vessels is essential.

Dr. Mustapha: Have you considered performing the AVR procedure on patients with Rutherford 5?  

Dr. Kum: In our initial experience, we started treating end-stage patients as we deemed that these patients had no other alternative. As our technique and experience with the procedure has grown, we have started treating patients who are not end stage. A consideration would be to offer the procedure to someone who required a specific angiosome to be revascularized. Percutaneous DVA would be able to reperfuse the specific angiosome, sparing a non-contributory angiosome from potential restenosis. In my opinion, this holds promise, as we leave existing collateral circulation alone.

Dr. Mustapha: Do you follow a specific post-operative follow-up algorithm?  

Dr. Kum: Post procedure, we encourage the continuation of therapeutic anticoagulation for 48 hours. Closure devices are regularly employed post procedure to allow this. Intravenous antibiotics are continued as per institution protocol. In general, we err on the side of caution and prefer a longer course of intravenous antibiotics due to the large amount of covered stent implanted, especially if the foot wound is infected. In anticipation of foot swelling, which is a sign of successful venous perfusion, we elevate the foot for 48 hours and ambulate the patient thereafter.

Dr. Mustapha: What is your advice to operators who are considering doing arterial venous flow reversal in their institutions?

Dr. Kum: There is a learning curve and the LimFlow device makes it much simpler to perform. It is absolutely crucial that these centers have good wound care programs.  Venous arteriolization, in my opinion, is able to perfuse the foot. Wound care is somewhat different from a standard arterial revascularization (the details which cannot be covered here). As with all programs, a dedicated team will ensure that a good angiographic result translates to a good clinical result. This is especially true in percutaneous DVA.

Read the original interview:

http://www.cathlabdigest.com/article/Update-Novel-AV-Reversal-Therapy-End-Stage-CLI


CONTACT US

Send inquiries to info@radpad.com for a free No Brainer™ sample. The No Brainer™ blocks up to 95% of radiation exposure to the brain. Lightweight, adjustable protection for all O.R. suite and fluoro lab personnel during interventional procedures.

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730 or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)
Fax: 913-648-0131
Unknown
5511-used-in-cardiac-cath-procedure-thumb
RADPAD Presents: Cardiovascular Procedure Volume Growth Report

RADPAD Presents: Cardiovascular Procedure Volume Growth Report

Posted on September 19, 2017 by in Uncategorized with no comments

Here we present an article from MedMarket Diligence that provides information about the growth of cardiovascular procedure volume worldwide.

Based on their report described below, the volume of procedures is predicted to grow by an average of 3.7% per year from 2016 – 2022. The volume of corresponding surgeries and transcatheter interventions is forecast to expand to more than 18.73 million.

 

Cardiovascular procedure volume growth (interventional and surgical)

Cardiovascular surgical and interventional procedures are performed to treat conditions causing inadequate blood flow and supply of oxygen and nutrients to organs and tissues of the body. These conditions include the obstruction or deformation of arterial and venous pathways, distortion in the electrical conducting and pacing activity of the heart, and impaired pumping function of the heart muscle, or some combination of circulatory, cardiac rhythm, and myocardial disorders. Specifically, these procedures are:

  • Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery;
  • Coronary angioplasty and stenting;
  • Lower extremity arterial bypass surgery;
  • Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with and without bare metal and drug-eluting stenting;
  • Peripheral drug-coated balloon angioplasty;
  • Peripheral atherectomy;
  • Surgical and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair;
  • Vena cava filter placement
  • Endovenous ablation;
  • Mechanical venous thrombectomy;
  • Venous angioplasty and stenting;
  • Carotid endarterectomy;
  • Carotid artery stenting;
  • Cerebral thrombectomy;
  • Cerebral aneurysm and AVM surgical clipping;
  • Cerebral aneurysm and AVM coiling & flow diversion;
  • Left Atrial Appendage closure;
  • Heart valve repair and replacement surgery;
  • Transcatheter valve repair and replacement;
  • Congenital heart defect repair;
  • Percutaneous and surgical placement of temporary and permanent mechanical cardiac support devices;
  • Pacemaker implantation;
  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement;
  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy device placement;
  • Standard SVT & VT ablation; and
  • Transcatheter AFib ablation

For 2016 to 2022, the total worldwide volume of these cardiovascular procedures is forecast to expand on average by 3.7% per year to over 18.73 million corresponding surgeries and transcatheter interventions in the year 2022. The largest absolute gains can be expected in peripheral arterial interventions (thanks to explosive expansion in utilization of drug-coated balloons in all market geographies), followed by coronary revascularization (supported by continued strong growth in Chinese and Indian PCI utilization) and endovascular venous interventions (driven by grossly underserved patient caseloads within the same Chinese and Indian market geography).

Venous indications are also expected to register the fastest (5.1%) relative procedural growth, followed by peripheral revascularization (with 4.0% average annual advances) and aortic aneurysm repair (projected to show a 3.6% average annual expansion).

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; “Global Dynamics of Surgical and Interventional Cardiovascular Procedures, 2015-2022,” (Report #C500).

Geographically, Asian-Pacific (APAC) market geography accounts for slightly larger share of the global CVD procedure volume than the U.S. (29.5% vs 29,3% of the total), followed by the largest Western European states (with 23.9%) and ROW geographies (with 17.3%). Because of the faster growth in all covered categories of CVD procedures, the share of APAC can be expected to increase to 33.5% of the total by the year 2022, mostly at the expense of the U.S. and Western Europe.

However, in relative per capita terms, covered APAC territories (e.g., China and India) are continuing to lag far behind developed Western states in utilization rates of therapeutic CVD interventions with roughly 1.57 procedures per million of population performed in 2015 for APAC region versus about 13.4 and 12.3 CVD interventions done per million of population in the U.S. and largest Western European countries.

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; “Global Dynamics of Surgical and Interventional Cardiovascular Procedures, 2015-2022,” (Report #C500).


Global Cardiovascular Procedures report #C500 details the current and projected surgical and interventional therapeutic procedures commonly used in the management of acute and chronic conditions affecting myocardium and vascular system.

Read the original article:

http://blog.mediligence.com/2017/02/13/cardiovascular-procedure-volume-growth-interventional-and-surgical/


CONTACT US

Send inquiries to info@radpad.com for a free No Brainer™ sample. The No Brainer™ blocks up to 95% of radiation exposure to the brain. Lightweight, adjustable protection for all O.R. suite and fluoro lab personnel during interventional procedures.

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730 or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)
Fax: 913-648-0131
Unknown
no-brainer-photo
Studies Support the Need for Radiation Protection for the Brain

Studies Support the Need for Radiation Protection for the Brain

Posted on May 12, 2017 by in Safety with no comments

Here we present the first of two studies regarding Rad Techs and brain cancer.  This study (3/25/2016) showed a 2.5 times greater incidence of brain cancer due to radiation exposure in the fluoro labs than to those RTs working outside the interventional suite. The study recommended ALARA and more work in this area.

This study and can be used to support the need for radiation protection for the brain.

See the original article publication here.
Read the full article below:
What’s the radiation risk to RTs from fluoro studies?

By Brian Casey, AuntMinnie.com staff writer

April 7, 2017 — Are radiologic technologists (RTs) who assist with interventional studies at higher risk of death from brain cancer? Maybe, but it’s not clear that radiation exposure is the reason why, according to a new study published March 28 in the American Journal of Roentgenology.

Researchers from a variety of institutions studied brain cancer death rates in a group of 110,000 radiologic technologists who participated in a longitudinal survey starting in 1981. While RTs who were involved in fluoroscopy had slightly higher brain cancer death rates than those who weren’t, the researchers found no relationship between the amount of radiation they were exposed to on the job and their risk of brain cancer death.

This led Cari Kitahara, PhD, of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and colleagues to conclude that there may be other factors behind why interventional RTs have higher brain cancer rates. These could include exposure to developing chemicals used to process film or drugs and iodinated contrast agents used during fluoroscopy-guided procedures (AJR, March 28, 2017).

On-the-job exposure

A number of studies in recent years have examined the link between radiation exposure and cancer death rates in radiologic technologists, particularly interventional procedures due to their higher radiation levels compared to static studies. Researchers have focused on brain cancer mortality because interventional technologists wear lead shielding that protects other parts of the body from radiation, while the head is for the most part unprotected.

A March 2016 study by Rajaraman et al found that interventional technologists had a mortality risk from malignant intracranial neoplasms that was 2.5 times higher compared to RTs who never assisted with fluoroscopy procedures. The current study used the same cohort as the Rajaraman study, but it was designed to assess whether there was a relationship between brain cancer mortality rates and the amount of radiation technologists were exposed to during their work histories.

Kitahara and colleagues analyzed data from the U.S. Radiologic Technologists Study, which began in the 1980s with a cohort of 146,022 technologists who were working in the field at the time, some having started their careers as early as 1926. The technologists received four surveys between 1983 and 2014 that asked various questions regarding work history and practices, medical history, and other issues.

Kitahara’s group used data from technologists who responded to the first or second cohort surveys (or both); this consisted of 83,655 female and 26,642 male technologists. To be included in the study, estimates of annual and cumulative radiation doses to the brain must have been performed for the individuals.

Dose estimates were derived from badge measurements for 72% of the study cohort members between 1960 and 1997, as well as detailed work histories of procedures and protection practices from the first three cohort surveys. The researchers used historical data and dose estimates for the years before 1960 when dosimetry badges weren’t yet available.

Kitahara and colleagues then tracked various demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, and medical and work histories, including a history of working with fluoroscopy-guided imaging procedures. Finally, they tracked the number of cases of brain cancer that occurred in the subjects.

Over a median follow-up period of 26.7 years, 193 technologists who assisted with fluoroscopically guided procedures died of malignant brain tumors, the researchers found. Individuals in the group had a cumulative mean absorbed brain dose of 12 mGy.

Like Rajaraman et al, Kitahara’s group found a higher relative risk of brain cancer mortality among technologists who assisted with fluoroscopy compared to those who didn’t. But the relationship was not as strong: The new study found that those who were exposed to fluoroscopy procedures had a relative risk of brain cancer mortality of 1.7 compared to technologists who didn’t do fluoroscopy. This compared to a risk of 2.5 in the Rajaraman research. (The Kitahara study followed technologists for an additional four years compared to the previous research.)

Their next question was whether the technologists who received a higher radiation dose experienced a higher rate of brain cancer mortality. The answer was no: Kitahara and colleagues found an excess relative risk for brain cancer mortality of 0.1 per 100 mGy of exposure, just slightly above the rating of 0 that would indicate no association.

“We found no evidence of a dose-response association between cumulative protracted occupational radiation and malignant intracranial tumor mortality,” they wrote.

The researchers noted that the statistical power of their study may have been too limited to identify a positive relationship between radiation dose and mortality, given the relatively small number of cancer deaths and the low range of estimated radiation dose.

But they also postulated that the higher rate of brain tumor deaths found in both the Rajaraman and Kitahara studies could be due to factors other than radiation in the work environment of technologists who assist with interventional radiology

For example, technologists assisting with fluoroscopy-guided procedures continued to perform photographic subtraction angiography in darkrooms through the 1980s, whereas technologists working with static radiographs stopped working with open film tanks in the 1960s, they noted. Film-processing chemicals have been associated with a wide range of health maladies.

Fluoroscopy technologists are also exposed to a variety of drugs and iodinated contrast agents at a higher rate than other RTs, although the authors pointed out that a connection between such chemicals and brain tumor development has not yet been established.

In the end, Kitahara and colleagues noted that their findings are in line with other studies on exposure to low and moderate doses of radiation, which have not established a link between exposure levels and brain cancer mortality in adults.

They advised additional studies in the future, such as examining the association between protracted radiation exposure and benign brain tumor incidence in the same cohort.


CONTACT US

Send inquiries to info@radpad.com for a free No Brainer™ sample. The No Brainer™ blocks up to 95% of radiation exposure to the brain. Lightweight, adjustable protection for all O.R. suite and fluoro lab personnel during interventional procedures.

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730
or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)

Fax: 913-648-0131

Email: info@radpad.com

Unknown

 


RADPAD-radiation-protection
RADPAD® Attends SIR 2017 Annual Scientific Meeting in Washington DC

RADPAD® Attends SIR 2017 Annual Scientific Meeting in Washington DC

Posted on March 24, 2017 by in Uncategorized with no comments

The Society of Interventional Radiology

SIR is a national organization of physicians, scientists and allied health professionals dedicated to improving public health through disease management and minimally invasive, image-guided therapeutic interventions.

SIRBanner2017-1


RADPAD at SIR 2017 

RADPAD-radiation-protectionD2A089EF-1A2C-41B3-B37E-930F888F1E92

 

Goals of the SIR 2017 Annual Scientific Meeting

It is SIR’s goal to promote the high-quality practice of interventional radiology through this and other educational programs. Meeting attendees will receive the latest information in basic and clinical research; experience techniques and technologies utilized by interventional radiologists around the world; see the latest equipment used in IR; and discuss social, political and economic issues important to the IR community.

 

SIR 2017 ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING OBJECTIVES

At the end of this meeting the learner should be able to:

1. Demonstrate the high-quality practice of interventional radiology in a team environment

2. Illustrate the latest information regarding basic and clinical research in diseases, including techniques and technologies integral to the practice of interventional radiology

3. Evaluate the latest equipment developed for interventional radiology procedures

4. Discuss societal, political and economic issues of importance to the interventional radiology community

 

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730
or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)Fax: 913-648-0131

Email: info@radpad.com

Follow RADPAD® on Facebook
Unknown

WIT Wins Business Award: 25 Under 25®

Posted on February 10, 2017 by in Other Stories with no comments

Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc. Has Won the 25 Under 25® Award

2016AwardsLookingDown_25U25

“Small businesses are a powerful, but often overlooked force in Kansas City,” said Kelly Scanlon, CEO of Thinking Bigger Business Media and the creator of 25 Under 25®.

“Together, these companies employ thousands upon thousands of people, deliver innovative products and services, and help support our government, schools, nonprofits and other public resources. Of course, most of our winners are too humble and too busy to brag about their contributions. But it’s a story that needs to be told. The 25 Under 25® Awards are proud to celebrate the important service of small businesses.”

 

About the 25 Under 25® Awards

As part of its 10-year anniversary celebration in 2002, Thinking Bigger Business Media Inc. launched the annual 25 Under 25® Awards to recognize 25 outstanding Kansas City businesses with under 25 employees.

Until the 25 Under 25® Awards, no formal recognition program existed in the Kansas City area that specifically targeted businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Yet this segment of business comprises the largest number of companies both locally and nationally, with roughly 83 percent of Kansas City area and 86 percent of businesses nationwide employing 19 or fewer employees.

With the establishment of the 25 Under 25® Awards program, small businesses are being recognized for the significant role they play in the Kansas City economy. The 25 Under 25® Awards program is not just about honoring individual businesses—it’s also about opening the public’s eyes to the economic, social and community impact of small businesses.

 

Honorees

December 7, 2016

Thinking Bigger Business Media is proud to announce the honorees of the 16th annual 25 Under 25® Awards—a group that represents the best of Kansas City’s small business community.

The awards are presented to 25 local businesses with fewer than 25 employees. An independent panel of judges consisting of area business leaders chooses the winning companies. Nearly 1,500 nominations were submitted. This year’s honorees include:

 

More info on the awards and the award reception here: https://ithinkbigger.com/events/25-under-25/

WORLDWIDE INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (WIT)
14740 W 101st Terrace
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913-648-3730
or 1-877-7RADPAD (1-877-772-3723)

Fax: 913-648-0131

Email: info@radpad.com

Follow RADPAD® on Facebook
Unknown

RAPDAD Scatter Radiation Shields Protection during Vascular Surgery

Posted on January 20, 2017 by in Products, Safety with no comments

RADPAD-scatter-radiation-protectio

When people go through vascular surgery, scatter radiation occurs. Scatter radiation was inevitable in the past. But with today’s new technology at our disposal, we can protect ourselves from scatter radiation and get results. The most prominent target for scatter radiation are the patients themselves and then the physicians who care for them. Let us look at the different ways we can avoid scatter radiation.

Interventional Peripheral Shields

Interventional Peripheral Shields are used during vascular surgery and cardiothoracic surgery. The shields provide the physician with added length that helps him work on the entire length. The shade is what comes handy and helps in avoiding scatter radiation. There are a lot of fluids used in this process and this is the reason why it is available in absorbent covering.

The shields provide excellent protection during AAA (Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm) and TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve replacement) procedures. During these procedures the physician is required on both sides and thus the protection is also available on two sides.

Why do we need Protection from Scatter Radiation?

Is it inevitable? Why do we need protection against scatter radiation? The simple reason is that all radiation is harmful and there is more than one person present for a surgery. The nurses and the doctors along with the patient are potentially at risk. This is the reason why we need to have protection against scatter radiation.

And this is why RADPAD is inventing and manufacturing better shields that drastically reduce the radiation in every interventional procedure. It is available from 50% to 95% at 90kVp.

Some shields are designed specifically for absorbing radiation in certain zones. This helps in giving the physicians a place where they can safely work where the radiation won’t affect them at all.

Moreover, there are safety regulations for the doctors that state the radiation exposure to the doctors and other personnel should be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). This makes the use of RADPAD shields even more important in every operation theater.

So, now you know what kind of RADPAD shields can be used to protect a physician and their team from harmful scatter radiations. When everyone is protected, then surgeons can focus on what’s important; operating on their patients. Get these RADPAD shields for your company today.