1-877-7RADPAD     info@radpad.com

Tag: Radiation-protection

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
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

RADPAD Safety News: Low Doses of Radiation Could Harm Cardiovascular Health

Posted on August 31, 2017 by in Safety with no comments

It is known that populations exposed to ionizing radiation in medical or environmental settings have symptoms suggesting an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, this research study suggests that low exposure to doses of around 0.5 Gy (the equivalent of repeated CT scans) is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular damage, up to decades after exposure. This raises questions about the nature of long-term alterations in the heart’s vascular system caused by such doses.”

For more about this study read the article below, originally published by Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiology:


NEWS | RADIATION DOSE MANAGEMENT | JULY 17, 2017

Low Doses of Radiation Could Harm Cardiovascular Health

New study suggests dose of 0.5 Gy associated with significantly increased risk of cardiovascular damage as long as decades after exposure. 

Low Doses of Radiation Could Harm Cardiovascular Health

July 17, 2017 — Ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, has a harmful effect on the cardiovascular system even at doses equivalent to recurrent computed tomography (CT) imaging, a new study published in the International Journal of Radiation Biology suggests.

It is known that populations exposed to ionizing radiation in medical or environmental settings have symptoms suggesting an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, this research study suggests that low exposure to doses of around 0.5 Gy (the equivalent of repeated CT scans) is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular damage, up to decades after exposure. This raises questions about the nature of long-term alterations in the heart’s vascular system caused by such doses.

Soile Tapio, M.D., and Omid Azimzadeh, M.D., of Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, and colleagues studied how human coronary artery endothelial cells respond to a relatively low radiation dose of 0.5 Gy and found several permanent alterations in the cells that had the potential to adversely affect their essential functions.

Endothelial cells, which form the inner layer of blood vessels, were found to produce reduced amounts of nitric oxide, an essential molecule in several physiological processes including vascular contraction. Previously, high-dose radiation (16 Gy) has been shown to persistently reduce levels of nitric oxide in the serum of mice, but this is the first study to indicate impaired nitric oxide signaling at much lower doses.

Cells damaged by low-dose radiation also produced increased amounts of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are formed as a natural byproduct of normal oxygen metabolism and play an important role in cell signaling. Increased ROS can damage DNA and proteins.

In addition, exposed cardiac endothelial cells were found to have reduced capacity to degrade oxidized proteins and to be aging prematurely. Such harmful changes did not occur immediately (that is, within a day) but first began in the longer term (one to two weeks). As these cells do not divide rapidly in the body, this observed time in the cell culture would correspond to several years in the living organism.

All these molecular changes are indicative of long-term premature dysfunction and suggest a mechanistic explanation to the epidemiological data showing increased risk of cardiovascular disease after low-dose radiation exposure, the authors concluded.

 


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
RADPAD Interventional Cardiology News: the EARLY TAVR Trial

RADPAD Interventional Cardiology News: the EARLY TAVR Trial

Posted on July 21, 2017 by in Procedures with no comments

The following article from Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiology  offers interesting news about the EARLY TAVR trial, and insights from Philippe Genereux, M.D., interventional cardiologist and the trial’s lead investigator.

The EARLY TAVR trial’s purpose is to assess any health benefit from replacing the aortic valve through a minimally invasive, catheter-based procedure prior to patients showing symptoms, as opposed to the standard of care of observing patients until symptoms develop.

 

FEATURE | HEART VALVE TECHNOLOGY | JULY 14, 2017

First Patient in World Enrolled in Study Evaluating TAVR for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis

Morristown Medical Center randomizes first patient in the EARLY TAVR trial, which may change treatment paradigm to save heart function, prevent deterioration

Edwards Sapien 3 TAVR valve will be implanted in asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients in the EARLY TAVR Trial

July 14, 2017 — Morristown Medical Center, part of Atlantic Health System, has randomized the first patient in the world to the EARLY TAVR (Evaluation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to SurveilLance for Patients With AsYmptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) trial.

Philippe Genereux, M.D., an interventional cardiologist and co-director of the Structural Heart Program at the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute at Morristown Medical Center, serves as the trial’s principal (lead) investigator. The study is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved inventigational device exemption (IDE) trial.

Traditionally, patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS)—a narrowing of the aortic valve in the heart that keeps it from opening fully—who do not yet have symptoms (asymptomatic), are regularly followed and monitored by their cardiologist, and treatment is not initiated until they become symptomatic. However, many elderly patients with asymptomatic severe AS can develop irreversible heart damage or even die while waiting for symptoms to appear. The EARLY TAVR trial will evaluate whether there is benefit from replacing the aortic valve via a minimally invasive, catheter-based procedure (called a transcatheter aortic valve replacement) before patients develop symptoms (shortness of breath, dizziness, fainting, or angina) as compared to the standard of care of watching the patient until symptoms develop.

“The EARLY TAVR trial is an incredibly important trial for the more than 2.5 million people who suffer from aortic stenosis because it may provide an answer to the frequent dilemma cardiologists face about how they should treat severe aortic stenosis, even though patients have no symptoms,” Genereux explained. “The progression of aortic stenosis is unpredictable, and there may be a price to pay for waiting to treat—the goal of early intervention with valve replacement is to preserve the heart’s function, prevent further heart deterioration, and in some case, death.”

“As a nationally recognized leader in cardiology and cardiovascular surgery, Atlantic Health System is committed to both prolonging and improving the quality of life for patients with heart disease,” said Linda D. Gillam, M.D., MPH, The Dorothy and Lloyd Huck Chair of Cardiovascular Medicine at Morristown Medical Center/Atlantic Health System. “Our participation in clinical trials, like EARLY TAVR, not only ensures our patients have access to new treatments before they are approved or available to the general public, but helps our clinicians remain on the cutting edge of medicine with access to the latest medications, devices, and technology.”

 

About the EARLY TAVR Trial

Evaluation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to SurveilLance for Patients With AsYmptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis (EARLY TAVR) is a randomized, controlled, multi-center clinical trial study. Patients aged 65 and older diagnosed with asymptomatic, severe aortic stenosis will be randomized to receive a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Edwards Sapien 3 heart valve, or standard of care clinical surveillance. The study will enroll 1,000 patients in 65 cardiovascular centers.

Patients will be randomized (TAVR or surveillance) based on their ability to perform a treadmill stress test, as well as other factors. Those patients with a positive treadmill stress test or who do not meet other factors for randomization may be followed in a registry for data collection on subsequent treatment and mortality, as applicable.

The EARLY TAVR trial is sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. According to Edwards Lifesciences, global transcatheter heart valve therapy (THVT) sales rose 29 percent to $432 million in the past year. In the United States, sales grew by 38 percent. Edwards said cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists are now implanting the company’s Sapien 3 TAVR devices at more than 500 hospitals in the U.S.

For more information: www.atlantichealth.org/valveresearch

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

 

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-scatter-radiation-protectio
RADPAD Glossary of Some Common Interventional Techniques

RADPAD Glossary of Some Common Interventional Techniques

Posted on April 21, 2017 by in Uncategorized with no comments

5511-used-in-abdominal-procedure-thumb

Radiology is the branch of medical science that has seen a major boost in the past few years. With more and more doctors learning interventional techniques for radiology, it has become important that you get familiar with some of the glossary terms related to this technology.

Central Venous Access

This is one method that is used to insert nutrients or blood in the blood vessels of the patient. The needle is inserted just beneath the skin and also used to provide medication of any kind to the patients.

Bleeding internally

Unlike in the past, interventional radiologists can easily pinpoint the area of internal bleeding with angioplasty. This has helped a lot in the operations that need to be performed after a person has sustained a severe accident. When the point of bleeding is discovered, the required blood clotting substance, gel, foam or tiny coils can be inserted with the help of a thin catheter that stop the bleeding.

Balloon Angioplasty

One of the most effective methods to open up clogged arteries in the legs, brains, arms, kidneys or anywhere in the body is balloon angioplasty. A very small balloon is inserted into the vessel and inflated to open it.

Biliary Drainage and Stenting

Excess bile in the liver can cause problems; the biliary drainage method is used to extract it. A stent is a small mesh tube that is used to open up blocked ducts and allow the bile to drain out.

Angiography

This is one of the superior X-ray exams that help in seeking out blockages and other blood vessel problems in the body. A catheter and a contrast agent (X-ray dye) are used to ensure the visibility of the artery.

Arteriovenous Malformations (AVM)

One of the biggest threats that can lead to internal bleeding and take lives is blood vessel abnormality. It can occur anywhere in the body. For this reason, arteriovenous malformations need to be treated properly. Interventional radiologists can treat this problem by inserting a catheter into the site of the bleeding.

Embolization

This is the process through which the clotting agent is delivered directly to the bleeding area in cases like an aneurysm or a fibroid tumor in the uterus. The clotting agents are the coils, plastic particles, gels, foams, and other materials.

High Blood Pressure

The problem of renal hypertension occurs due to the narrowing of the arteries in the kidneys. This problem leads to an increase in blood pressure. It can be easily treated with angioplasty.

Gastrostomy Tube

This is the tube that is inserted into the stomach of patients who are unable eat food usings their mouths.

Chemoembolization

Cancer is becoming curable, and the cancers of the endocrine system and the liver can be treated with this method. In this method of Chemoembolization, cancer-fighting agents are directly delivered to the site of the tumor of the cancer.

Needle Biopsy 

This is a great alternative to a surgical biopsy. The needle biopsy is used as a diagnostic test for breast, lung and other cancers.


Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc. 

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

TAVR-Radiation-Protection
One-Third of Patients With Low Flow Aortic Stenosis Do Not Improve With TAVR, Research Finds

One-Third of Patients With Low Flow Aortic Stenosis Do Not Improve With TAVR, Research Finds

Posted on October 27, 2016 by in Procedures with no comments

Aortic Stenosis, the narrowing of the aortic valve in the heart, causing restricted blood flow, is one of the most common and serious valve disease problems. A TAVR procedure is the best option for treating this disease, but recent studies have shown that approximately one-third of low flow AS patients continue to suffer with low flow AS after the procedure.

Read the full article on the Radpad blog below, or see the original publication here: http://www.cathlabdigest.com/content/One-Third-Patients-Low-Flow-Aortic-Stenosis-Do-Not-Improve-TAVR-Research-Finds

One-Third of Patients With Low Flow Aortic Stenosis Do Not Improve With TAVR, Research Finds

Patients who do not improve with TAVR are found to have worse clinical outcomes at one year

TAVR-Radiation-Protection

June 16, 2016 – Aortic stenosis (AS), the narrowing of the aortic valve in the heart which causes restricted blood flow, is one of the most common and serious valve disease problems. For patients with one type of AS — low flow — transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a minimally invasive procedure which corrects the damaged aortic valve, is often the best option for restoring the heart’s normal pumping function. However, approximately one-third of low flow AS patients treated with TAVR continue to suffer persistent low flow AS even after the procedure, ultimately increasing their risk of death. Now, researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania have examined this high-risk patient population to determine the cause of this persistent low flow AS and to evaluate their risk of dying during the year following the procedure. Their findings are detailed in a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association – Cardiology.

“There has been a lot of interest in these patients with low flow AS, as their surgical mortality is higher than other patients. TAVR is often a good option, but not all of them will be able to normalize flow following the procedure and these persistently low flow patients have a 60 percent higher rate of mortality at one year,” said Howard C. Herrmann, MD, FACC, MSCAI, John W. Bryfogle Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, and director of Penn Medicine’s Interventional Cardiology Program. “Low flow before TAVR is one of the most important predictors of mortality following TAVR, but it is one of the harder qualities to measure. This presents a challenge to properly treating patients with low flow AS, and can leave some patients at higher risk.”

To better understand the potential benefits of TAVR for low flow AS, researchers conducted an analysis of 984 patients with low flow AS from the PARTNER trial and continued access registry from April 2014 through January 2016. A baseline and follow-up echocardiogram, evaluation of post-TAVR hemodynamics — blood flow — and one year outcomes were assessed.

Through this analysis, researchers identified the large subgroup of patients who, following TAVR, failed to regain normal flow despite a successful procedure. In the first six months following TAVR, flow improved in roughly 66 percent of the patients evaluated. However, those with severe low flow AS had the highest mortality rate — 26 percent — at one year, as compared to approximately 20 percent for those with moderate low flow and even less for those with normal flow.

“Unfortunately, many centers do not routinely measure flow, but rather focus more on a patient’s pressure gradient or valve area when evaluating aortic stenosis pre-and post-TAVR,” said Herrmann. “While low flow is more challenging to monitor, this measurement can better inform the patient’s risk of mortality, and in turn lead to better treatment.”

The researchers noted that the identification of remedial, or treatable, causes of persistent low flow following TAVR, such as severe mitral regurgitation and atrial fibrillation, may represent an opportunity to improve the outcomes of these patients.

Journal Reference:

  1. Venkatesh Y. Anjan, MD; Howard C. Herrmann, MD; Philippe Pibarot, PhD; William J. Stewart, MD; Samir Kapadia, MD; E. Murat Tuzcu, MD; Vasilis Babaliaros, MD; Vinod H. Thourani, MD; Wilson Y. Szeto, MD; Joseph E. Bavaria, MD; Susheel Kodali, MD; Rebecca T. Hahn, MD; Mathew Williams, MD; D. Craig Miller, MD; Pamela S. Douglas, MD; Martin B. Leon, MD. Evaluation of Flow After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Low-Flow Aortic Stenosis: A Secondary Analysis of the PARTNER Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association — Cardiology, June 2016 DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0759