[Radiation Dose Considerations for Breast Sonographers Following 99mTc-HMDP Bone Scan Administration].

PURPOSE: Patients who were administered radiopharmaceuticals can be a source of radiation exposure to sonographers. This study aimed to identify factors associated with radiation exposure to breast sonographers from patients administered radiopharmaceuticals for bone scanning. METHODS: The exposure dose of six sonographers was measured during breast sonography in 59 patients administered 99mTc-HMDP. We predicted the following factors to be related to exposure dose: time interval between administration and sonography, sonography examination time, estimated radioactivity at sonography, sonographer's years of experience, and patients' clinical data (age, renal function and surgical procedure). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between radiation dose and the aforementioned factors. RESULTS: The mean±standard deviation of the exposure dose for the sonographers was 9.3±3.8 µSv. The time interval between administering the radiopharmaceutical agent and sonography, the sonography examination time and estimated radioactivity at sonography were found to be factors related to the exposure of the sonographer. The exposure dose increased as a function of the shorter time interval, longer examination time and higher estimated radioactivity at sonography. CONCLUSION: The time interval between drug administration and sonography, sonography examination time and estimated radioactivity at sonography contributed to the increased dose to breast sonographers. Although we considered that the exposure dose of sonographers would not possibly exceed the dose limit in the present study, we suggested that radiological technologists need to educate the physicians requesting sonography, and the sonographers about the radiation exposure in nuclear medicine.

Enhancing radiation safety awareness and practices among female radiographers: a comprehensive approach.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the level of radiation safety awareness and adherence to protective practices among pregnant female radiographers in the United Arab Emirates, aiming to identify gaps and develop targeted interventions for enhancing occupational safety. METHODS: Employing a cross-sectional design, the study surveyed 133 female radiographers using a self-developed questionnaire covering demographics, awareness and knowledge, workplace practices, communication, and satisfaction. RESULTS: The survey showed high awareness among radiographers, with 97% acknowledging radiation risks during pregnancy, although 42.9% had not received formal training. Concerns over long-term health effects were significant, with 66.2% of participants worried about potential impacts. Despite these concerns, 83.5% had been informed about radiation risks and protective measures, indicating active information provision in many workplaces. However, inconsistencies in information dissemination across different work settings were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need for standardized radiation safety protocols for pregnant radiographers. The variability in safety training and information dissemination suggests the importance of establishing uniform safety practices. Recommendations include developing comprehensive education and training programs for pregnant radiographers, ensuring open communication for radiation safety and pregnancy-related concerns, and enforcing clear guidelines for workplace accommodations.

Comprehensive Shielding System Enhances Radiation Protection for Structural Heart Procedures.

Background: This study of radiation exposure (RE) to physicians performing structural heart procedures evaluated the efficacy of a novel comprehensive radiation shield compared to those of traditional shielding methods. A novel comprehensive shielding system (Protego, Image Diagnostics Inc) has been documented to provide superior RE protection during coronary procedures compared to that provided by a standard "drop down" shield. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of this shield in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures, which are associated with disproportionate RE to operators. Methods: This single-center, 2-group cohort, observational analysis compared RE to the primary physician operator performing TAVR using the Protego shield (n = 25) with that using a standard drop-down shield with personal leaded apparel (n = 25). RE was measured at both thyroid and waist levels with a real-time dosimetry system (RaySafe i3, RaySafe) and was calculated on a mean per case basis. Data were collected on additional procedural parameters, including access site(s) for device implantation, per case fluoroscopy time, air kerma, and patient factors, including body mass index. Between-group comparisons were conducted to evaluate RE by group and measurement sites. Results: The Protego system reduced operator RE by 99% compared to that using standard protection. RE was significantly lower at both the thyroid level (0.08 ± 0.27 vs 79.2 ± 62.4 µSv; P < .001) and the waist level (0.70 ± 1.50 vs 162.0 ± 91.0 µSv, P < .001). "Zero" total RE was documented by RaySafe in 60% (n = 15) of TAVR cases using Protego. In contrast, standard protection did not achieve zero exposure in a single case. Conclusions: The Protego shield system provides superior operator RE protection during TAVR procedures. This shield allows operators to work without the need for personal lead aprons and has potential to reduce catheterization laboratory occupational health hazards.

Radiation Exposure Using Rampart vs Standard Lead Aprons and Shields During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures.

Background: Radiation exposure during invasive cardiovascular procedures remains an important health care issue. Lead aprons and shields (LAS) are used to decrease radiation exposure but leave large portions of the body unshielded. The Rampart IC M1128 is a portable radiation shielding system that may significantly attenuate radiation exposure. Methods: Catheterization laboratory teams were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to perform elective invasive cardiovascular procedures utilizing either traditional LAS or the Rampart IC M1128. Radiation exposure was measured using real-time dosimetry monitoring in prespecified anatomic locations on 3 operators (position 1: first operator/fellow; position 2: second operator/attending; and position 3: catheterization laboratory nurse/technologist). Radiation exposure was measured on a per-case basis. Results: In total, 100 consecutive cases were randomized in this study (47 Rampart; 53 LAS). There was no difference in fluoroscopy time (12.3 minutes for Rampart vs 15.4 minutes for LAS; P = .52), dose area product (288 Gy⋅cm2 for Rampart vs 376.5 Gy⋅cm2 for LAS; P = .52), or scatter radiation (38.8 mRem for Rampart vs 46.8 mRem for LAS; P = .61) between the groups. There was significantly lower total body radiation (in milliroentgen equivalent man) exposure using the Rampart than that using LAS for each team member: position 1-0.1 mRem for Rampart vs 2.2 mRem for LAS; P < .001; position 2-0.1 mRem Rampart vs 3.2 mRem LAS; P < .001; and position 3-0.0 mRem for Rampart vs 0.8 mRem for LAS; P < .001. Conclusions: During routine clinical procedures, the Rampart system significantly decreases total body radiation exposure compared with traditional LAS.

Radiation Doses to the Entire Catheterization Laboratory Team With a Novel Radiation Protection Device.

Background: A novel radiation protection system has recently been shown to shield the primary operator from scatter radiation, but whether it shields other members of the catheterization laboratory team remains unknown. Methods: Radiation exposure data were collected prospectively in 50 coronary angiography cases, in which 25 were completed using standard radiation protection and 25 with a novel system consisting of a series of rigid shields and flexible radiation-resistant drapes. Radiation doses, measured with real-time dosimeters, were compared between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences between groups with respect to patient or procedural characteristics, including air kerma (P = .97) and dose area product (P = .17). The primary operator received a median head-level radiation dose of 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] µSv with the novel radiation protection system and 2.1 [0.7, 3.3] µSv with standard radiation protection (P < .001). Scrub technologists had a median head-level radiation dose of 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] µSv with the novel radiation protection system and 0.3 [0.1, 0.4] µSv with standard radiation protection (P < .001). The median head-level radiation dose among circulating nurses was 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] µSv with the novel radiation protection system and was 0.1 [0.0, 0.2] µSv with standard radiation protection (P < .001). Conclusions: Compared to standard radiation protection with lead aprons, use of a novel radiation protection system during coronary angiography was associated with significantly lower head-level radiation doses among all members of the catheterization laboratory team.

Implementing a 'Lead [Apron]-Free' Cardiac Catheterization: Current Status.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we discuss the status of novel radiation shielding and other methods to reduce radiation exposure and its associated health risks within the CCL. RECENT FINDINGS: There are many devices on the market each with its unique advantages and inherent flaws. Several are available for widespread use with promising data, while others still in development. The field of percutaneous transcatheter interventions includes complex procedures often involving significant radiation exposure. Increased radiation exposes the proceduralist and CCL staff to potential harm from both direct effects of radiation but also from the ergonomic consequences of daily use of heavy personal protective equipment. Here we discuss several innovative efforts to reduce both radiation exposure and orthopedic injury within the CCL that are available, leading to a safer daily routine in a "lead [apron]-free" environment.

Feasibility of safe outpatient treatment in pediatric patients following intraventricular radioimmunotherapy with 131I-omburtamab for leptomeningeal disease.

BACKGROUND: Radiolabeled antibody 131I-omburtamab was administered intraventricularly in patients with leptomeningeal disease under an institutionally approved study (#NCT03275402). Radiation safety precautions were tailored for individual patients, enabling outpatient treatment based on in-depth, evidence-based recommendations for such precautions. The imperative advancement of streamlined therapeutic administration procedures, eliminating the necessity for inpatient isolation and resource-intensive measures, holds pivotal significance. This development bears broader implications for analogous therapies within the pediatric patient demographic. METHODS: Intraventricular radioimmunotherapy (RIT) with 925-1850 MBq (25-50 mCi) of 131I-omburtamab was administered via the Ommaya reservoir, in designated rooms within the pediatric ambulatory care center. Dosimeters were provided to staff involved in patient care to evaluate exposure during injection and post-administration. Post-administration exposure rate readings from the patient on contact, at 0.3 m, and at 1 m were taken within the first 30 min, and the room was surveyed after patient discharge. Duration of radiation exposure was calculated using standard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) regulatory guidance recommendations combined with mean exposure rates and whole-body clearance estimates. Exposure rate measurements and clearance data provided patient-specific precautions for four cohorts by age: < 3 y/o, 3-10 y/o, 10-18 y/o, and 18+. RESULTS: Post-administration exposure rates for patients ranged from 0.16 to 0.46 µSv/hr/MBq at 0.3 m and 0.03-0.08 µSv/hr/MBq at 1 m. Radiation exposure precautions ranged from 1 to 10 days after release for the four evaluated cohorts. Based on the highest measured exposure rates and slowest whole-body clearance, the longest precautions were approximately 78% lower than the regulatory guidance recommendations. Radiation exposure to staff associated with 131I-omburtamab per administration was substantially below the annual regulatory threshold for individual exposure monitoring. CONCLUSION: 131I-omburtamab can be administered on an outpatient basis, using appropriate patient-based radiation safety precautions that employ patient-specific exposure rate and biological clearance parameters. This trial is registered with the National Library of Medicine's ClinicalTrials.gov. The registration number is NCT03275402, and it was registered on 7 September 2017. The web link is included here. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03275402 .

Facilitating the End of the Linear No-Threshold Model Era.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which asserts that any level of ionizing radiation increases cancer risk, has been the basis of global radiation protection policies since the 1950s. Despite ongoing endorsements, a growing body of evidence challenges the LNT model, suggesting instead that low-level radiation exposure might reduce cancer risk, a concept known as radiation hormesis. This editorial examines the persistence of the LNT model despite evidence favoring radiation hormesis and proposes a solution: a public, online debate between proponents of the LNT model and advocates of radiation hormesis. This debate, organized by a government agency like Medicare, would be transparent and thorough, potentially leading to a shift in radiation protection policies. Acceptance of radiation hormesis could significantly reduce cancer mortality rates and streamline radiation safety regulations, fostering medical innovation and economic growth.

Radiation safety of ultra-high dose rate electron accelerators for FLASH radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: An ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron accelerator for FLASH radiotherapy (RT) produces very intense bremsstrahlung by the interaction of the electron beam with objects both inside and outside of the accelerator. The bremsstrahlung dose per pulse is typically 1-2 orders of magnitude larger than that of conventional RT x-ray treatment of the same energy, and for electron energies above 10 MeV, the bremsstrahlung produces substantially more induced radioactivity outside the accelerator than for conventional RT. Therefore, a thorough radiation safety assessment is mandatory prior to the operation of a UHDR electron accelerator. PURPOSE: To evaluate the radiation safety of a prototype FLASH-enabled Varian TrueBeam accelerator and to develop a general framework for assessment of all key radiation safety properties of a UHDR electron accelerator for FLASH RT. METHODS: Production of bremsstrahlung and induced radioactivity by a UHDR electron accelerator is modeled by various analytical methods. The analytical modeling is compared with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) bremsstrahlung yield data as well as measurements of primary bremsstrahlung outside the bunker and induced radioactivity of irradiated thick targets for a FLASH-enabled 16 MeV Varian TrueBeam electron accelerator. In addition, the analytical modeling is complemented by measurements of secondary bremsstrahlung inside/outside the bunker and neutrons at the maze entrance. RESULTS: Calculated bremsstrahlung yields deviate maximum 8.5% from NIST data, and all measurements of primary bremsstrahlung and induced radioactivity agree with calculations, validating the analytical tools. In addition, it is found that scattering foil bremsstrahlung dominates primary bremsstrahlung and the main source of secondary bremsstrahlung is the irradiated object outside the accelerator. It follows that primary and secondary bremsstrahlung outside the bunker can be calculated using the same simple formalism as that used for conventional RT. Measured primary bremsstrahlung tenth-value layers for concrete of the simple formalism are in good agreement with NCRP and IAEA data, while measured secondary bremsstrahlung tenth-value layers for concrete are considerably lower than NCRP and IAEA data. All calculations and measurements form a general framework for assessment of all key radiation safety properties of a UHDR electron accelerator. CONCLUSIONS: The FLASH-enabled Varian TrueBeam accelerator is safe for normal operation (max. 99 pulses per irradiation) in a bunker designed for at least 15 MV conventional x-ray treatment unless the UHDR workload is much larger than the x-ray workload. A similar finding applies to other UHDR electron accelerators. However, during beam tuning, radiation survey, or other tests with extended irradiation time, the UHDR workload may become very large, necessitating the implementation of additional safety measures.

Intraindividual Comparison of Dose Reduction and Coronary Calcium Scoring Accuracy Using Kilovolt-independent and Tin Filtration CT Protocols.

Purpose To investigate the ability of kilovolt-independent (hereafter, kV-independent) and tin filter spectral shaping to accurately quantify the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and radiation dose reductions compared with the standard 120-kV CT protocol. Materials and Methods This prospective, blinded reader study included 201 participants (mean age, 60 years ± 9.8 [SD]; 119 female, 82 male) who underwent standard 120-kV CT and additional kV-independent and tin filter research CT scans from October 2020 to July 2021. Scans were reconstructed using a Qr36f kernel for standard scans and an Sa36f kernel for research scans simulating artificial 120-kV images. CACS, risk categorization, and radiation doses were compared by analyzing data with analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test, Bland-Altman analysis, Pearson correlations, and κ analysis for agreement. Results There was no evidence of differences in CACS across standard 120-kV, kV-independent, and tin filter scans, with median CACS values of 1 (IQR, 0-48), 0.6 (IQR, 0-58), and 0 (IQR, 0-51), respectively (P = .85). Compared with standard 120-kV scans, kV-independent and tin filter scans showed excellent correlation in CACS values (r = 0.993 and r = 0.999, respectively), with high agreement in CACS risk categorization (κ = 0.95 and κ = 0.93, respectively). Standard 120-kV scans had a mean radiation dose of 2.09 mSv ± 0.84, while kV-independent and tin filter scans reduced it to 1.21 mSv ± 0.85 and 0.26 mSv ± 0.11, cutting doses by 42% and 87%, respectively (P < .001). Conclusion The kV-independent and tin filter research CT acquisition techniques showed excellent agreement and high accuracy in CACS estimation compared with standard 120-kV scans, with large reductions in radiation dose. Keywords: CT, Cardiac, Coronary Arteries, Radiation Safety, Coronary Artery Calcium Score, Radiation Dose Reduction, Low-Dose CT Scan, Tin Filter, kV-Independent Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Comparing Radiation Doses in CBCT and Medical CT Imaging for Dental Applications.

Background: Dental imaging plays a crucial role in diagnosis and treatment planning, with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and medical computed tomography (CT) being two common modalities. This study aims to compare the radiation doses associated with CBCT and medical CT imaging in dental applications to assess their relative safety and efficacy. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using data from 100 patients who underwent both CBCT and medical CT scans for dental purposes. The radiation doses were measured in terms of dose-length product (DLP) for medical CT and dose-area product (DAP) for CBCT. The effective dose (ED) was calculated using appropriate conversion factors. Patient demographics, scan parameters, and radiation doses were recorded and analyzed. Results: The results indicated that the mean DLP for medical CT scans was 220 mGycm, whereas the mean DAP for CBCT scans was 150 mGycm². The corresponding mean effective doses for medical CT and CBCT were 2.5 mSv and 1.8 mSv, respectively. The radiation dose from CBCT was found to be approximately 28% lower than that from medical CT. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that CBCT imaging for dental applications results in significantly lower radiation doses compared to medical CT. While both modalities provide valuable diagnostic information, the choice of imaging technique should consider the balance between diagnostic quality and radiation exposure, especially for pediatric and high-risk patients. Dental practitioners should be aware of the potential dose reduction benefits associated with CBCT when appropriate for the clinical scenario.

Evaluating Peer Review of Palliative Radiation Plans at a Canadian Tertiary Care Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review (PR) of palliative-intent radiation plans is an important but understudied component of quality assurance. This retrospective review aims to improve our understanding of palliative PR by examining the characteristics of reviewed plans and peer feedback along with the associated time burden of two different types of PR processes. METHODS: This single-institution, quality assurance project assessed palliative PR between 2018 and 2020. Initially, the PR involved a multi-disciplinary team PR. Subsequently, it transitioned to independent PR by a single physician. Characteristics of reviewed plans and feedback on PR were captured and abstracted. Time requirements of PR were based on self-reported estimates and attendance records. RESULTS: A total of 1942 cases were reviewed, representing 85.7% (1942/2266) of all palliative-intent plans between 2018 and 2020. A total of 41.1% (n=799) were simple (2D/3D) radiation plans while 56.0% (n=1087) were complex (volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or tomotherapy) plans. Approximately one-third (30.4%, n=590) of all plans were stereotactic treatments. The rate of any peer feedback was 2.3% (n=45), while the rate of a specific recommended or implemented change was 1.2% (n=24) and 0.9% (n=18), respectively. PR before the start of treatment was associated with more frequent recommended (p=0.005) and implemented changes (p=0.008). Most other factors, including plan complexity and use of stereotactic radiation, were not predictive in this analysis. Comparing the independent versus team PR approach, there was no significant difference in recommended or implemented changes. The mean±standard deviation (SD) staff time required per plan reviewed was 36±6 and 37±6 minutes, including 21±6 and 10±6 minutes of physician time, for team and independent PR, respectively. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the high frequency of complex and stereotactic radiation in the palliative setting, along with the importance of timely PR and the potential benefit of reviewing even simple, 2D/3D radiation plans. Additionally, from a process perspective, our work showed that independent PR may require less dedicated physician time.

Frugal and Translatable [15O]O2 Production for Human Inhalation with Direct Delivery from the Cyclotron to a Hybrid PET/MR.

Oxygen-15 (ß+, t1/2 = 122 s) radiolabeled diatomic oxygen, in conjunction with positron emission tomography, is the gold standard to quantitatively measure the metabolic rate of oxygen consumption in the living human brain. We present herein a protocol for safe and effective delivery of [15O]O2 over 200 m to a human subject for inhalation. A frugal quality control testing procedure was devised and validated. This protocol can act as a blueprint for other sites seeking to implement similar imaging programs.

Individual patient radiation dose tracking: Perceptions of radiographers in South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Medical imaging examinations that make use of ionising radiation provide valuable information towards patient management. Literature suggests that there is a significant rise in the number of patient referrals for such examinations. The concept "individual patient radiation dose tracking" (IPRDT) is introduced to optimise radiation monitoring. Many countries across the globe explored and implemented methods to enhance and promote the justification and optimisation principles essential for patient radiation safety. In South Africa (SA), however, attention to IPRDT is limited. METHODS: A qualitative research design was employed. Radiographers in the Western Cape Province of SA were purposefully sampled for participation in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was applied to the transcribed interview data. RESULTS: This paper presents a theme developed from the radiographer cohort of ten (10) participants. The theme: the need for creating awareness and implementing legislative support structures, was developed from the data, with the following supporting subthemes: 1) stakeholder awareness and 'buy-in' 2) continuous professional development and 3) mandated practice. CONCLUSION: This study provides findings that are of value for patient radiation safety in SA by giving a voice to local stakeholders. Other countries that are conducting similar research investigations toward the integration of an IPRDT model, method, or framework, may also benefit from these findings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The effective integration of IPRDT into the clinical environment requires unison amongst the relevant stakeholders and clarity on the various professionals' roles and responsibilities. The findings of this study furthermore suggest the involvement of regulatory organisations for the provision of a mandated form of practice at national and international levels.

Effect of backscatter radiation on the occupational eye-lens dose.

We quantified the level of backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads using a phantom. We also evaluated the shielding rate of the protective eyewear and optimal placement of the eye-dedicated dosimeter (skin surface or behind the Pb-eyewear). We performed diagnostic X-rays of two head phantoms: Styrofoam (negligible backscatter radiation) and anthropomorphic (included backscatter radiation). Radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeters were used to measure the eye-lens dose, with or without 0.07-mm Pb-equivalent protective eyewear. We used tube voltages of 50, 65 and 80 kV because the scattered radiation has a lower mean energy than the primary X-ray beam. The backscatter radiation accounted for 17.3-22.3% of the eye-lens dose, with the percentage increasing with increasing tube voltage. Furthermore, the shielding rate of the protective eyewear was overestimated, and the eye-lens dose was underestimated when the eye-dedicated dosimeter was placed behind the protective eyewear. We quantified the backscatter radiation generated from physicians' heads. To account for the effect of backscatter radiation, an anthropomorphic, rather than Styrofoam, phantom should be used. Close contact of the dosimeter with the skin surface is essential for accurate evaluation of backscatter radiation from physician's own heads. To assess the eye-lens dose accurately, the dosimeter should be placed near the eye. If the dosimeter is placed behind the lens of the protective eyewear, we recommend using a backscatter radiation calibration factor of 1.2-1.3.

Radiation Safety Assessment in Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Predictive Approach for I-125 Brachytherapy.

This study uses Monte Carlo simulation and experimental measurements to develop a predictive model for estimating the external dose rate associated with permanent radioactive source implantation in prostate cancer patients. The objective is to estimate the accuracy of the patient's external dose rate measurement. First, I-125 radioactive sources were implanted into Mylar window water phantoms to simulate the permanent implantation of these sources in patients. Water phantom experimental measurement was combined with Monte Carlo simulation to develop predictive equations, whose performance was verified against external clinical data. The model's accuracy in predicting the external dose rate in patients with permanently implanted I-125 radioactive sources was high (R2 = 0.999). A comparative analysis of the experimental measurements and the Monte Carlo simulations revealed that the maximum discrepancy between the measured and calculated values for the water phantom was less than 5.00%. The model is practical for radiation safety assessments, enabling the evaluation of radiation exposure risks to individuals around patients with permanently implanted I-125 radioactive sources.

Comparison of shielding effects of over-glasses-type and regular eyewear in terms of occupational eye dose reduction.

Given the new recommendations for occupational eye lens doses, various lead glasses have been used to reduce irradiation of interventional radiologists. However, the protection afforded by lead glasses over prescription glasses (thus over-glasses-type eyewear) has not been considered in detail. We used a phantom to compare the protective effects of such eyewear and regular eyewear of 0.07 mm lead-equivalent thickness. The shielding rates behind the eyewear and on the surface of the left eye of an anthropomorphic phantom were calculated. The left eye of the phantom was irradiated at various angles and the shielding effects were evaluated. We measured the radiation dose to the left side of the phantom using RPLDs attached to the left eye and to the surface/back of the left eyewear. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded good protection against x-rays from the left and below; the average shielding rates on the surface of the left eye ranged from 0.70-0.72. In clinical settings, scattered radiation is incident on physicians' eyes from the left and below, and through any gap in lead glasses. Over-glasses-type eyewear afforded better protection than regular eyewear of the same lead-equivalent thickness at the irradiation angles of concern in clinical settings. Although clinical evaluation is needed, we suggest over-glasses-type Pb eyewear even for physicians who do not wear prescription glasses.

Assessing the Efficacy of RADPAD Protection Drape in Reducing Radiation Exposure to Operators in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

One of the leading environmental hazards, ionizing radiation, is linked to several detrimental health consequences in the body. RADPAD (Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas) is a sterile, lead-free, lightweight, disposable radiation protection shield. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of RADPAD protection drapes in the cardiac catheterization lab and how they can aid interventional cardiologists in becoming subjected to less scatter radiation. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies discussing the efficacy of RADPAD protection drapes in reducing radiation exposure to operators in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for endpoints: primary operator exposure dose, dose area product (DAP), relative exposure, and screening time. Our analysis included 892 patients from six studies. Compared to the No-RADPAD group, primary operator exposure dose (E) was significantly lower in the RADPAD group (OR: -0.9, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.43, I2 = 80.5%, p = 0.0001). DAP was comparable between both groups (OR: 0.008, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, p = 0.9066). There was no difference in the relative exposure (E/DAP) (OR: -0.47, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.02, I2 = 0%, p = 0.90) and screening time (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.35, I2 = 0%, p = 0.22) between the two groups. The interventional cardiology laboratory is exposed to significantly less scatter radiation during procedures owing to the RADPAD protective drape. Consequently, all catheterization laboratories could be advised to employ RADPAD protective drapes.