1-877-7RADPAD     info@radpad.com

Tag: Radiation

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® 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

 

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

 


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.

alternate access for CTOs by RADPAD
RADPAD CLI Perspectives: Alternative Access for CTOs in CLI

RADPAD CLI Perspectives: Alternative Access for CTOs in CLI

Posted on September 12, 2016 by in Procedures with no comments

Last year, Cath Lab Digest published an interview covering alternative access for chronic total occlusions in critical limb ischemia. J.A. Mustapha, MD, interviewed Andrej Schmidt, MD, Department of Angiology, Leipzig Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany. 

Read the full article below or click the link for the original publicaiton:

http://www.cathlabdigest.com/article/CLI-PERSPECTIVES-Alternative-Access-CTOs-CLI

 


CLI PERSPECTIVES: Alternative Access for CTOs in CLI

Author(s):

CLI Perspectives is headed by section editor J.A. Mustapha, MD, 

Metro Health Hospital, Wyoming, Michigan. 

 

Topics:
Access
Critical limb ischemia
Chronic total occlusions (CTO)
Issue Number:
Volume 23 – Issue 2 – February, 2015

 

 

 

J. Mustapha: What is your preferred access method for crossing complex superficial femoral artery (SFA) CTOs, with the exception of ostial SFA disease?

A. Schmidt: Most SFA CTO crossing is performed via ipsilateral antegrade approach.

 

 

J. Mustapha: Why do you prefer an ipsilateral antegrade approach?

A. Schmidt: For multiple beneficial reasons, including shortening the distance from the access site to the CTO, enhancement of pushability, and much better wire and catheter torque.

 

J. Mustapha: Do you ever perform a contralateral access approach for SFA CTOs?

 

A. Schmidt: Yes, mostly in patients who are not good candidates for antegrade access such as obese patients, those with proximal disease, ostial SFA disease, or CTOs. Mostly, I prefer antegrade access for SFA CTOs.

 

J. Mustapha: Many of us have seen you perform live cases and have witnessed your excellent techniques in retrograde popliteal and SFA access in complex CTO crossing. Why do you access these segments?

A. Schmidt: We access distal to the CTO cap of the SFA or popliteal CTO only when we fail to cross from antegrade approach first. The reason we access close to the CTO is similar to the reasoning of the antegrade access, close to the CTO cap, which in turns helps with retrograde pushability and torqueability.

J. Mustapha: What advice would you give practitioners who would like to perform similar retrograde access in the SFA/popliteal?

A. Schmidt: Proceed with caution, as this should only be attempted after an antegrade approach fails.  Be sure to have a balloon across the occluded target lesion and the guidewire across the distal access before taking the access catheter out, so that in case a problem (dissection, occlusion) occurs at the distal entrance, balloon angioplasty can be done to fix it. Hemostasis is principally done by external compression.

 

 

J. Mustapha: What is the average time of your balloon inflation?

A. Schmidt: The time depends on the size of the access catheter or the sheath used. Most of the time, we use the smallest catheter possible, .018-inch to .035-inch.  Therefore, we perform a three-minute balloon inflation followed by an angiogram.

 

J. Mustapha: Is this the same for a stick in a stent vs no stent?

A. Schmidt: Yes.

 

J. Mustapha: Do you worry about harming the stent after getting access in it?

A. Schmidt: No. So far, in our experience, we have not had any issues with stents in these situations. Keep in mind, we only get an access in the stent in extreme cases and place the smallest catheter possible.

J. Mustapha: Moving to retrograde tibial access, which access method do you use to enter the artery, angiogram-guided or ultrasound-guided?

A. Schmidt: We use angiogram-guided access.

 

J. Mustapha: Which is your preferred tibial artery for retrograde access and which part of the artery do you like to enter?

A. Schmidt: My preferred artery is the anterior tibial artery and I prefer to enter it proximally.

 

J. Mustapha: Why proximal versus distal?

A. Schmidt: Proximally, because the vessel diameter is larger and accommodates a 4 French sheath if needed.

 

J. Mustapha: How do you get the access?

A. Schmidt: First we position the foot supine and support it with a rolled-up towel, then perform an angiogram in left oblique 30° view, and enter the needle thru the skin into the artery. If no blood returns, we perform an oblique view with repeat angiogram which helps show the tip of the needle and artery.

 

J. Mustapha: How do you obtain hemostasis after the proximal tibial access?

A. Schmidt: Most of the time, we use an external blood pressure cuff.  Occasionally, we use an intra-arterial balloon.

 

J. Mustapha: If needed, what are your tips and tricks for getting distal tibial access?

A. Schmidt: Starting with the dorsalis pedis access, foot positioning is important. First we position the foot supine and support it with a rolled-up towel, then the C-arm is positioned at about 15° ipsilateral and 10° cranial. We then use the quick access needle holder, followed with an angiogram. Also, we can puncture and perform contrast injection simultaneously, as needed.

 

J. Mustapha: Do you recommend road mapping for tibial access?

A. Schmidt: No, side movements of the artery due to puncture needles are not noticed, which may lead to accidental venous access and failed attempts. Also, I don’t recommend coming in from a lateral approach.

 

J. Mustapha: How do you know your needle is in line with the artery?

A. Schmidt: After angiogram is done, make the needle form one line with the artery (Figure 1A-B).

 

J. Mustapha: What do you do in the setting of no blood return?

A. Schmidt: Obtain oblique orthogonal views at 55-65°, load the guidewire into the needle, and perform contrast injection via the proximal sheath and pull back very slowly. Keep testing if the guidewire makes it through. Another method is to pull back slowly and inject contrast from the needle holder until you see contrast in the artery, then advance the guidewire (Figure 2A-G).

 

J. Mustapha: Any tips on how to get peroneal access?

A. Schmidt: Start with an anterior approach. Place the C-arm at ipsilateral LAO 30° (Figure 3A), perform antegrade angiogram, and position the needle in line with the artery.  If no success, then move the C-arm to right anterior oblique (RAO) 70° (Figure 3B) and repeat angiogram. Redirect the needle toward the artery, puncturing the peroneal artery through the membrana interossea.

 

J. Mustapha: Which puncture site is safer?

A. Schmidt: The distal tibial access approach is safer, as it is not associated with compartment syndrome.

 

J. Mustapha: What needles to you use for proximal and distal tibial access?

A. Schmidt: For proximal anterior tibial, posterior tibial, and peroneal access, we use a 7cm, 21g needle. For distal tibials, we use a 4cm, 21g needle.

 

J. Mustapha: Please advise what NOT to do in infrapopliteal retrograde access.

A. Schmidt: One should not access communication arteries, especially those off of the peroneal artery, as shown in Figure 4.

 

J. Mustapha: How do you minimize radiation exposure?

A. Schmidt: My angiographical approach to retrograde pedal and tibial puncture is quick and precise, minimizing radiation exposure. I attribute this to experience and the right equipment (Figure 5A). I wear a ring dosimeter (Figure 5B) to measure my exposure.

Disclosure: Dr. Mustapha reports he is a consultant to Bard Peripheral Vascular, Covidien, Cordis, CSI, Spectranetics, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Schmidt reports occasional consulting for Bard and Medtronic.

Dr. Andrej Schmidt and Dr. J.A. Mustapha can be contacted at jihad.mustapha@metrogr.org

 

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
Follow RADPAD® on Facebook
Unknown

 

Protecting the Provider:  A Reexamination of Cath Lab Radiation Safety

Protecting the Provider: A Reexamination of Cath Lab Radiation Safety

Posted on July 22, 2016 by in Safety with no comments

Protecting the Health of Cath Lab Technicians

Unlike patients who are only exposed to ionized radiation during their procedure, cath lab technicians are exposed during every procedure they perform. This article discusses health effects associated with radiation exposure in the cath lab along with ways to protect the health of those technicians. Two of those ways are wearing a lead-based shield, and keeping a distance between the operator and the radiation source.

Wohns, David, and Ryan Madder. “Protecting the Provider: A Reexamination of Cath Lab Radiation Safety.” Cath Lab Digest. HMP Communications, Feb. 2015. Web. 26 May 2016.

Read the article in full below, or click the link to see the originally published article at Cath Lab Digest:

http://www.cathlabdigest.com/article/Protecting-Provider-Reexamination-Cath-Lab-Radiation-Safety

 


 

Protecting the Provider: A Reexamination of Cath Lab Radiation Safety

Author(s):

David Wohns, MD, Medical Director, and Ryan Madder, MD, 

Kresge Cardiac Cath Labs, Frederik Meijer Heart & Vascular Institute, 

Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Topics:
Radiation
Safety
Robotic PCI

In the delivery of high-quality healthcare, patient safety is always a major concern of providers and the public. The safety of healthcare workers frequently receives significantly less attention. Recent events have highlighted this issue and are altering this perspective, with greater recognition of the sacrifices and risks that healthcare workers routinely take to perform their jobs. Patient safety remains the number-one concern of healthcare providers. However, the health and safety of providers should receive equal attention, particularly when novel techniques and strategies can be adopted to mitigate provider risk.

During 2014, the Ebola patients treated within U.S. borders caught the attention of the mainstream media and the public. Besides the public’s general concern for the patients, much attention was devoted to the healthcare workers who were exposed to the virus while caring for Ebola patients. These events raised the public’s awareness of healthcare worker safety and also caused many people to ask: “How do we ensure the safety of healthcare providers who put themselves in harm’s way to look after their patients’ health?

Madder

This increased awareness is especially relevant to interventional cardiologists. Unlike patients, who are only exposed to ionizing radiation during their procedure, interventional cardiologists and other members of the cath lab team are repeatedly exposed to ionizing radiation, subjecting them to potentially serious long-term health issues. Additionally, the physical demands of performing their jobs while wearing heavy protective gear can lead to chronic orthopedic conditions that may prematurely end careers or force change into other fields of medicine.

Wohns

With the increased interest in healthcare worker safety, it is an appropriate time to explore the risks associated with cath lab environments and novel technological solutions available to improve safety.

Assessing cath lab risks

Medical procedures performed in the cath lab are a leading source of occupational ionizing radiation exposure for medical personnel1, due to the use of fluoroscopy and cine angiography during these procedures. This occupational radiation exposure is of particular concern because today’s interventional cardiologists are spending significantly greater time in the cath lab doing more complex and lengthy procedures. Further, the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in cath labs has increased more than 50 percent since 20002, potentially exposing interventional cardiologists to additional radiation.

Although research studies have demonstrated substantial variations in the amount of ionizing radiation to which interventional cardiologists are exposed, a look at the literature reveals the following:

  • One study showed that an interventional cardiologist’s head and neck area are generally exposed to approximately 20 to 30 millisieverts (mSv) per year3, which equates to 2 to 3 rems per year.
  • Another demonstrated that cumulative doses for the average interventional cardiologist after 30 years in the cath lab fall between 50 to 200 mSv, equivalent to 5 to 20 rems, or 2,500 to 10,000 chest x-rays.4
  • A third shows that interventionalists receive approximately 1 to 3 sieverts (Sv) to their head during their career (equivalent to 1,000 to 3,000 mSv, or 100 to 300 rems), which corresponds to about 500mSv to the brain5 (equivalent to 50 rems).
  • A separate study showed that interventional cardiologists have a radiation exposure rate documented to be two to ten times higher than that of diagnostic radiologists.4

 

Adverse health effects

Despite the availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as lead aprons, leaded glasses and thyroid collars, there are significant radiation exposure risks that have the potential to negatively impact the health of interventional cardiologists and their staff. Below are some findings from recent scientific literature:

  • Cataracts: The Occupational Cataracts and Lens Opacities in Interventional Cardiology (O’CLOC) study revealed that 50 percent of interventional cardiologists and 41 percent of cardiac cath nurses and technologists had significant posterior subcapsular lens changes, a precursor to cataracts, which is typical of ionizing radiation exposure.6
  • Thyroid disease: Studies have reported structural and functional changes of the thyroid as a result of radiation exposure.7 Structural changes such as malignant and benign thyroid tumors develop at a linear rate to dose exposure. Functional changes that would result in hyper- or hypo-thyroidism were noted at elevated doses of external and internal radiation exposure.7
  • Brain tumors and brain disease: A recent study focused on interventionalists who had been diagnosed with a variety of brain tumors. The study revealed that 86% of the brain tumors (where location is known) originated on the left side of the brain.8 This is significant, since interventional cardiologists typically stand with the left side of their body closest to the X-ray source and scattered radiation. In the general population, brain tumors originate with equal frequency on the left and right hemispheres.
  • Cardiovascular changes: Recent studies suggest evidence of a link between low- to moderate-dose radiation exposure and cardiovascular changes, despite personal protective wear.5
  • Reproductive health effects: For males, ionizing radiation has demonstrated a reduction in sperm.9 Additionally, cath lab staff members who may become pregnant while working in the cath lab must also take into consideration the effects that ionizing radiation can have on the developing fetus.

Additionally, there are orthopedic-related consequences from the heavy weight of lead gear worn by interventional cardiologists. The repeated standing and leaning over patients during procedures is fatiguing and commonly leads to chronic orthopedic conditions. A 2006 survey conducted by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) disclosed that interventional cardiologists suffer from a disproportionate amount of back, hip, and knee injuries leading to a significant amount of missed workdays.10 The weight of the personal protective gear is fatiguing, and a physician who is fatigued or experiencing discomfort may be more likely to be distracted or rush through a procedure.

Protecting the health of cath lab employees

There are two traditional techniques used to reduce radiation exposure. One is lead-based shielding, and the second is increasing the distance between the operator and the radiation source.

A relatively new approach to shielding includes devices that support lead aprons that hang from a boom, rather than being worn by clinicians. These hanging aprons provide effective radiation protection with a greater quantity of lead than is traditionally worn by operators. Since the operator is not physically supporting the lead, these devices have the potential to reduce orthopedic injuries and reduce overall operator fatigue.

The advent of robot-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents another novel approach to reducing radiation exposure to operators. Robotic systems for PCI allow interventional cardiologists to perform procedures remotely, away from the patient’s bedside. Seated in a radiation-protected cockpit, the physician uses digital controls to robotically manage catheters, guide wires, angioplasty balloons, and stents to clear blockages and restore blood flow. These technologies are beneficial in reducing exposure by positioning operators further from the radiation source, but also have the potential to mitigate the impact that wearing PPE has on operators, such as orthopedic pain, missed work and disability.

The robotic-assisted PCI system being used at Spectrum Health is called CorPath (Corindus Vascular Robotics). The CorPath System allows physicians to perform PCI procedures from the comfort of a radiation-shielded cockpit that includes angiographic and hemodynamic monitors. Physicians using the system are able to take measurements, with sub-millimeter accuracy, of relevant anatomy, as well as advance or retract guide wires and/or balloon stent catheters with movements as small as a millimeter. A clinical trial has shown that using the robotic system reduced radiation exposure to the primary operator by more than 95 percent.11

Elevating healthcare worker safety

Interventional cardiology is a uniquely rewarding, highly innovative profession. The bulk of the innovation in our field over the past 3 decades has appropriately been focused on patient care. However, the manner and circumstances with which that care has been delivered in the cath lab has changed little over time. New approaches are now available to begin to mitigate the biomechanical, orthopedic, and radiation risks of working in the cath lab. The CorPath System is an example of a device with tremendous promise to reduce these hazards for interventional cardiologists, contributing to longer, healthier careers. We have been excited to bring this innovative technology to our cath labs as part of the evolution of our environment.

References

  1. Sun Z, AbAziz A, Yusof AK. Radiation-induced noncancer risks in interventional cardiology: optimisation of procedures and staff and patient dose reduction. Biomed Res Int. 2013; 2013: 976962. doi: 10.1155/2013/976962.
  2. Best PJ, Skelding KA, Mehran R, Chieffo A, Kunadian V, Madan M, et al; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions’ Women in Innovations (WIN) Group. SCAI consensus document on occupational radiation exposure to the pregnant cardiologist and technical personnel. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Feb 1; 77(2): 232-241. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22877.
  3. L Renaud. A 5-y follow-up of the radiation exposure to in-room personnel during cardiac catheterization. Health Phys. 1992 Jan; 62(1): 10-15.
  4. Picano E, Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Cremonesi A, Guagliumi G. Occupational risks of chronic low dose radiation exposure in cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the Italian Healthy Cath Lab study. EMJ Int Cardiol. 2013; 1: 50-58.
  5. Picano E, Vano E, Domenici L, Bottai M, Thierry-Chef I. Cancer and non-cancer brain and eye effects of chronic low-dose ionizing radiation exposure. BMC Cancer. 2012 Apr 27; 12: 157. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-157.
  6. Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, Romano-Miller M, Rehani MM. Radiation-associated lens opacities in catheterization personnel: results of a survey and direct assessments. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Feb; 24(2): 197-204. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.10.016.
  7. Ron E, Brenner A. Non-malignant thyroid diseases after a wide range of radiation exposures.Radiat Res. 2010 Dec; 174(6): 877-888. doi: 10.1667/RR1953.1.
  8. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA.  Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013 May 1; 111(9): 1368-1372. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060.
  9. Burdorf A, Figà-Talamanca I, Jensen TK, Thulstrup AM. Effects of occupational exposure on the reproductive system: core evidence and practical implications. Occup Med (Lond). 2006 Dec; 56(8): 516-520.
  10. Dehmer GJ. Occupational hazards for interventional cardiologists. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006 Dec; 68(6): 974-976.
  11. Weisz G, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, Delgado JA, Marshall JJ, Vetrovec GW, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Apr 16; 61(15): 1596-1600. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.045.

Disclosure: Dr. Wohns and Dr. Madder report no conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.

The authors can be contacted via David.Wohns@spectrumhealth.org.

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
Follow RADPAD® on Facebook
Unknown
Copyright AP Radiation protection
Cath Lab Workers May Be Harmed by Radiation

Cath Lab Workers May Be Harmed by Radiation

Posted on July 1, 2016 by in Safety with no comments

This article discusses a study comprising 466 hospital staff members, including interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, nurses and technicians who are exposed to radiation regularly. Additionally, 280 staffers who were not exposed to radiation in the cath lab were interviewed. This study gathered work-related and lifestyle information, current medications and health status for these workers. Almost three percent of interventional cardiology staff had a history of cancer, compared to less than one percent of the unexposed group. Eight percent of lab workers had experienced skin lesions, 30 percent experienced orthopedic illness and five percent had cataracts, compared to two, five, and less than one percent of the unexposed group.

See the full article below or read the original by clicking the link below:

http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-News/cath-lab-workers-healthcare/2016/04/13/id/723656/

Cath Lab Workers May Be Harmed by Radiation
Wednesday, 13 Apr 2016 08:53 AM

Copyright AP Radiation protection
Healthcare workers in labs where patients undergo heart procedures guided by X-rays may be at higher risk for cataracts, skin lesions, bone disorders or cancer than other healthcare workers, according to a new study.

Procedures in the “cath lab” – named for the catheters threaded into the heart – are done for all forms of cardiac disease, like congenital heart defects, ischemic heart disease or heart arrhythmias, said lead author Maria Grazia Andreassi of the CNR Institute of Clinical Physiology in Pisa, Italy.
“These procedures, highly effective and often life-saving, require substantial radiation exposure to patients,” Andreassi told Reuters Health by email.

But staff members, too, are exposed to radiation. In particular, for the cardiologists and electrophysiologists who work near the patient and the radiation source, “the cumulative dose in a professional lifetime is not negligible,” Andreassi said.

The researchers used questionnaires to gather work-related and lifestyle information, current medications and health status for 466 exposed hospital staff, including interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, nurses and technicians, half of whom had been working for at least 10 years. They also surveyed 280 staffers who had not been exposed to radiation in the cath lab.

Almost 3 percent of interventional cardiology staff had a history of cancer, compared to less than 1 percent of the unexposed comparison group. Eight percent of lab workers had experienced skin lesions, 30 percent had an orthopedic illness and five percent had cataracts, compared to two percent, five percent and less than one percent of the unexposed group, respectively.

Doctors had higher risks than nurses or technicians, and risk was higher for those who had been working more than 16 years, as reported in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Stroke and heart attack risk were similar in the radiation and non-radiation exposure groups.

“Compared to healthcare professionals not exposed to radiation, workers with more than 16 years of occupational work are approximately 10 times more likely to experience cataracts and eight times more likely to have cancer after adjusting for other confounders,” like age and smoking status, Andreassi said.

Protective measures like leaded aprons, thyroid collars, leaded glasses, and overhead radiation shields can reduce the radiation dose to the operators, but are still not used regularly in every laboratory, Andreassi said.

Healthcare workers in the cath lab “sort of know there is a risk but it’s typically presented to young people as something to know about and not to worry about,” said Dr. Lloyd Klein of Advocate Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the new study.
“Everyone wears lead aprons, and increasingly, lead caps,” Klein told Reuters Health by email. “We are careful about unnecessary exposure.”

But wearing lead creates orthopedic problems and doesn’t completely protect against the effects of radiation, he said.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and federal and state agencies probably need to get more involved than they already are, he said.

“Unfortunately, interventional cardiologists are often inadequately trained in radiation safety and radiobiology, and hospitals have few training programs regarding radiation risk and exposure,” Andreassi said.
© 2016 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

 

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
Follow RADPAD® on Facebook
Unknown