A randomized controlled trial to assess operator radiation exposure from cardiac catheterization procedures using RAD BOARD® with standard pelvic shielding versus standard pelvic shielding alone

Objective To study radiation exposure to the primary operator during diagnostic cardiac catheterizations using a radio‐dense RAD BOARD® radial access arm board. Background The use of radial access for catheterization in the United States has increased from 1% in 2007 to 41% in 2018. Compared to femo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2020-01, Vol.95 (1), p.83-88
Main Authors: Suryadevara, Ramya, Brown, Eddie D., Green, Sandy M., Scott, Thomas D., Nordberg, Cara M., Blankenship, James C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Body mass
Body mass index
Cardiac catheterization
Catheterization
Demographic variables
Demographics
Exposure
Heart
Intubation
Multivariate analysis
RAD BOARD
radial access
Radiation
Radiation measurement
Radiation shielding
Radiation standards
Randomization
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To study radiation exposure to the primary operator during diagnostic cardiac catheterizations using a radio‐dense RAD BOARD® radial access arm board. Background The use of radial access for catheterization in the United States has increased from 1% in 2007 to 41% in 2018. Compared to femoral access, operator radiation exposure from radial access is similar or higher. The RAD BOARD radio‐dense radial access arm board has been marketed as reducing radiation to operators by 44%. Materials and Methods We randomized 265 patients undergoing catheterization via right radial access to standard pelvic lead drape shielding (nonboard group) versus RAD BOARD in addition to pelvic drape (board group). Operator radiation exposure was measured using Landauer Microstar nanoDot™ badges worn by the operator. Results Board and nonboard groups were similar with respect to demographic and procedural variables. Mean operator dose per case was higher in the board group (.65mSieverts) than in the nonboard group (.56mSieverts, P 
ISSN:1522-1946
1522-726X
DOI:10.1002/ccd.28190