Long-term outcomes after echocardiography versus fluoroscopy-guided left atrial appendage closure: Is there still a role for a simplified approach?

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) represents an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). While transoesophageal echocardiography is the current standard for guiding LAAC procedures, several centers have employed fluoroscopic guidance alone. However, data on long-term outcomes are lacking. METHODS: A total of 536 patients with AF undergoing LAAC and with available data on long-term follow-up were included in the retrospective, single-center analysis. Outcomes of patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided LAAC were compared with those undergoing echocardiography guided LAAC. Time-dependent analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 234 (44%) and 302 (56%) patients were treated with echocardiography and fluoroscopy guidance, respectively. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the two groups. Procedural success rates were high in both groups (97% of fluoroscopy vs. 98% of echocardiography guided procedures; p = 0.92) and rates of relevant peri-device leaks (p = 0.50) and device-related thrombus formation (p = 0.22) did not differ between groups. Median clinical follow-up time was 48 (IQR 19-73) months. Rates of all-cause mortality (p = 0.15, HR 0.83, CI 0.64-1.07) and stroke (p = 0.076, HR 2.23, CI 0.90-5.54) were comparable among groups. CONCLUSION: LAAC with fluoroscopy guidance alone is equally safe and leads to similar clinical outcome compared to LAAC with additional echocardiography guidance.

Adverse Events from Fluoroscopic versus Portable Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Central Venous Catheters in Pediatric Patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of fluoroscopic versus portable placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective review of 346 upper-extremity PICC placements (286 fluoroscopic and 60 portable; mean age, 9.83 years [SD ± 5.58]; 49.1% female) and 138 tunneled femoral CVC placements (56 fluoroscopic and 82 portable; mean age, 0.23 years [SD ± 0.36]; 57.0% female). Portable placements used mobile plain-film radiography. All lines were placed by board-certified interventional radiologists. RESULTS: Fluoroscopic PICC placements had a lower procedure time (43.9 vs 57.9 minutes; P < .001), radiation dosage (342 vs 590 mGy·cm2; P < .001), incidence of technical failure (0% vs 3.3%; P = .029), and incidence of catheter malfunction (1.7% vs 12.1%; P < .001) compared with portable PICC placements. Fluoroscopic CVC placements had a lower procedure time (42.6 vs 54.8 minutes; P < .001) and radiation dosage (63.8 vs 405 mGy·cm2; P < .001) compared with portable CVC placements. No technical failures were found in either CVC groups and the difference was nonsignificant for catheter malfunction (0% vs 7.3%; P = .081). Fluoroscopic placements of PICCs and CVCs had a lower incidence rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection compared with portable placements (0.71 vs 2.22 cases per 1,000 line-days; P = .046). Overall, fluoroscopic placements of PICCs and CVCs had fewer adverse events compared with portable placements (3.2% vs 14.8%; P < .001). Portable procedure setting was the only significant factor associated with adverse events (odds ratio, 33.77; 95% CI, 4.56-757.01). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopic placements of PICCs and CVCs are associated with lower procedure time, radiation dose, and risk of adverse events compared with portable placements in pediatric patients.

National Diagnostic Reference Levels for Standard Descending Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair and Optimisation Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The International Commission on Radiological Protection has highlighted the large number of medical specialties that use fluoroscopy outside diagnostic imaging departments without radiation protection programmes for patients and staff. Vascular surgery is one of these specialties. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a complicated procedure requiring radiation protection guidance and optimisation. The recent EU Basic Safety Standards Directive requires the use and periodic updating of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for interventional procedures. The aim of this study was to determine doses for patients undergoing TEVAR with mobile Xray systems and hybrid rooms (fixed Xray systems) to obtain national DRLs and to suggest optimisation actions. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross sectional study. The Spanish Chapter of Endovascular Surgery conducted a national survey in 11 autonomous communities representing around 77.6% of the Spanish population (47.33 million inhabitants). A total of 266 TEVAR procedures from 17 Spanish centres were analysed, of which 53.0% were performed in hybrid operating rooms. National DRLs were obtained and defined as the third quartile of the median values from the different participating centres. RESULTS: The proposed national DRLs are: for kerma area product (KAP), 113.81 Gy·cm2 for mobile Xray systems and 282.59 Gy·cm2 for hybrid rooms; and for cumulative air kerma (CAK) at the patient entry reference point, 228.38 mGy for mobile systems and 910.64 mGy for hybrid rooms. CONCLUSION: Based on the requirement to know radiation doses for standard endovascular procedures, this study of TEVARs demonstrated that there is an increased factor of 2.48 in DRLs for KAP when the procedure is performed in a hybrid room compared with mobile C-arm systems, and an increased factor of 3.98 in DRLs for CAK when the procedure is performed with hybrid equipment. These results will help to optimise strategies to reduce radiation doses during TEVAR procedures.

Intranodal Lymphangiography and Embolization for Management of Iatrogenic Chylous Ascites after Oncological Surgery.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of intranodal lymphangiography (INL) and lymphatic embolization (LE) in management of chylous ascites after oncologic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of records of patients who underwent INL with or without LE from January 2017 to June 2022 was performed. Adult patients with chylous ascites after oncologic surgery referred to interventional radiology after failure of conservative treatment were included. Thirty-nine patients who underwent 55 procedures were included (34 males and 5 females). Data on patient demographics, procedural technique, outcomes, and follow-up were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors predicting clinical success. RESULTS: INL was technically successful in 54 of 55 procedures (98%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 90%-100%). A lymphatic leak was identified in 40 procedures, and LE was attempted in 36. LE was technically successful in 33 of the 36 procedures (92%; 95% CI, 78%-98%). Clinical success, defined as resolution of ascites with no need for peritoneovenous shunt placement or additional surgery, was achieved in 22 of 39 patients (56%; 95% CI, 40%-72%). Clinical success was achieved in 18 patients after 1 procedure, and patients who required repeat procedures were less likely to achieve clinical success (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.66; P = .012). Four grade 1 procedural adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: INL with or without LE is a safe minimally invasive tool that can help patients with chylous ascites after oncologic surgery who failed conservative treatment avoid more invasive interventions.

Occupational Radiation Dose Trends in U.S. Radiologic Technologists Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures, 1980-2020.

PURPOSE: To summarize dose trends from 1980 to 2020 for 19,651 U.S. Radiologic Technologists who reported assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIPs), overall and by work history characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 762,310 annual personal dose equivalents at a 10-mm reference depth (doses) during 1980-2020 for 43,823 participants of the U.S. Radiologic Technologists (USRT) cohort who responded to work history questionnaires administered during 2012-2014 were summarized. This population included 19,651 technologists who reported assisting with FGIP (≥1 time per month for ≥12 consecutive months) at any time during the study period. Doses corresponding to assistance with FGIP were estimated in terms of proximity to patients, monthly procedure frequency, and procedure type. Box plots and summary statistics (eg, medians and percentiles) were used to describe annual doses and dose trends. RESULTS: Median annual dose corresponding to assistance with FGIP was 0.65 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 0.60-1.40 mSv; 95th percentile, 6.80). Higher occupational doses with wider variability were associated with close proximity to patients during assistance with FGIP (median, 1.20 mSv [IQR, 0.60-4.18 mSv]; 95th percentile, 12.66), performing ≥20 FGIPs per month (median, 0.75 mSv [IQR, 0.60-2.40 mSv]; 95th percentile, 9.44), and assisting with high-dose FGIP (median, 0.70 mSv [IQR, 0.60-1.90 mSv]; 95th percentile, 8.30). CONCLUSIONS: Occupational doses corresponding to assistance with FGIP were generally low but varied with exposure frequency, procedure type, and proximity to patients. These results highlight the need for vigilant dose monitoring, radiation safety training, and proper protective equipment.

Potential risk assessment: a model for quality evaluation in fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures.

This study presented a model applied for potential risk assessment in an interventional radiology setting. The model of potential risk assessment (MARP) consisted of the creation of a scale of indicators ranging from 0 to 5. The radiation levels were categorized according to gender, kind of procedure, value of kerma air product (Pka), and accumulated radiation dose (mGy). The MARP model was applied in 121 institutions over 8 y. A total of 201 656 patient radiation doses (Dose-area product and accumulated kerma) data were launched into the system over time, with an average of 22 406 doses per year. In the context of the workers (cardiologists, radiographers, and nurses) monitored during the MARP application, 8007 cases (with an average of 890 per year) of occupational radiation doses were recorded. This study showed a strategy for quality evaluation in fluoroscopy using a model with a compulsory information system for monitoring safety.

Adverse reactions after intravascular iodinated contrast media administration and their management.

Endovascular interventions and diagnostic examinations using iodinated contrast media (ICM) are standard of care in current vascular medicine. Although ICM use is generally considered safe, it may be associated with adverse reactions, vary from minor disturbances to rare, but severe life-threatening complications. This position paper of European Society of Vascular Medicine integrates current knowledge and summarizes the key information related to the use of intravascular ICM, serving as recommendation on prevention and management of acute, late, and very late adverse reactions. It should help the health professionals in all fields of vascular medicine to make decisions in daily practice for safe use of contrast media.

Intraoperative Staff Radiation Exposure During Aortic Endovascular Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The risk of radiation exposure in the surgical operating room (OR) and/or catheterization laboratory is now well established. Complex endovascular procedures often require multiple approaches and different positioning of the staff members around the patient, potentially increasing the levels of radiations exposure. Our goal was to evaluate the levels of radiation exposure of the members of the staff during endovascular aortic procedures in order to propose radioprotection optimization. METHODS: We included 41 aortic endovascular procedures out of 114 procedures performed between January 12, 2014, and August 31, 2015, including 24 standard endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), 7 EVAR with iliac branch (EVARib), 8 complex fenestrated/branched EVAR (F/B EVAR), and 2 thoracic EVAR (TEVAR). Procedures were performed in an OR equipped with a carbon fiber table and a mobile fluoroscopy C-arm. We collected the usual dosimetry data given by the C-arm as well as the patient's peak skin dose (PSD). In all staff members, radiation exposure was measured with thermoluminescent chip dosimeters placed on both temples, on posterior sides of both hands, and on both lower legs. RESULTS: PSD levels were low for EVAR because 24 patients had values below the reading threshold. PSD significantly increased with more complex procedures. Main operator (MO) received the higher level of irradiation on whole body, hands, and ankles. Eye lenses irradiation was higher on both assistant operators (AOs). Other members received low levels of irradiation. We found a high ranges of radiation exposure with a high risk of exposure for the AO, mainly for F/B EVAR and EVARib. CONCLUSIONS: Even if all personal protections are used, staff positioning is a major point that must be considered. If MO is supposed to be the most exposed to X-rays, specific conditions of positioning of the AO may be at risk of exposure.

Comprehensive radiation shield minimizes operator radiation exposure in coronary and structural heart procedures.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the efficacy of a novel comprehensive shield designed to minimize radiation exposure (RE) to Physicians performing coronary and structural heart procedures. BACKGROUND: The Protego™ radiation shielding system (Image Diagnostics Inc., Fitchburg, Ma) is designed to provide comprehensive protection from RE and has been State certified sufficient to allow operators to perform procedures without orthopedically burdensome lead aprons. METHODS: This single center two-group cohort study assessed the efficacy of this shield in a large number of cardiac procedures (coronary and structural), comparing operator RE compared to standard protection methods (personal lead apparel and "drop down" shield). RESULTS: The Protego™ system reduced operator RE by 99 % compared to Standard Protection. RE was significantly lower at both "Head" level by thyroid median dose 0.0 (0.0, 0,0) vs 5.7 (2.9, 8.2) µSv (p < 0.001), as well as waist dose 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) vs 10.0 (5.0, 16.6) µSv (p < 0.001). "Zero" Total RE was documented by Raysafe™ in 64 % (n = 32) of TAVR cases and 73.2 % (n = 183) of the coronary cases utilizing Protego™. In contrast, standard protection did not achieve "Zero" exposure in a single case. These dramatic differences in RE were achieved despite higher fluoroscopy times in the Protego™ arm (11.9 ± 8.6 vs 14.3 ± 12.5 min, p = 0.015). Per case procedural exposure measured by Dose Area Product was higher in the Protego™ group compared to standard protection (115.4 ± 139.2 vs 74.9 ± 69.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Protego™ shield provides total body RE protection for operators performing both coronary and structural heart procedures. This shield allows procedural performance without the need for personal lead aprons and has potential to reduce catheterization laboratory occupational health hazards.

An In-depth Analysis of the Adverse Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure on Cardiac Catheterization Staffs.

Diagnostic and interventional angiograms are instrumental in the multidisciplinary approach to CAD management, enabling accurate diagnosis and effective targeted treatments that significantly enhance patient care and cardiovascular outcomes. However, cath lab staff, including interventional cardiologists, is consistently exposed to ionizing radiation, which poses inherent health risks. Radiation exposure in the cath lab primarily results from the use of fluoroscopy and cineangiography during diagnostic and interventional procedures. Understanding these risks and implementing effective radiation protection measurements are imperative to ensure the well-being of healthcare professionals while delivering high-quality cardiac care. Prolonged and repeated exposure can lead to both deterministic and stochastic effects. Deterministic effects, such as skin erythema and tissue damage, are more likely to occur at high radiation doses. Interventional cardiologists and staff may experience these effects when safety measures are not rigorously followed. In fact, while ionizing radiation is essential in the practice of radiation cardiology ward, cath lab staff faces inherent risks from radiation exposure. Stochastic effects, on the other hand, are characterized by a probabilistic relationship between radiation exposure and the likelihood of harm. These effects include the increased risk of cancer, particularly for those with long-term exposure. Interventional cardiologists, due to their frequent presence in the cath lab, face a higher lifetime cumulative radiation dose, potentially elevating their cancer risk. Protective measures, including the use of lead aprons, thyroid shields, and radiation monitoring devices, play a crucial role in reducing radiation exposure for cath lab personnel. Adherence to strict dose optimization protocols, such as minimizing fluoroscopy time and maximizing distance from the radiation source, is also essential in mitigating these risks. Ongoing research and advancements in radiation safety technology are essential in further for minimizing the adverse effects of ionizing radiation in the cath lab.

A procedural step analysis of radiation exposure in fenestrated endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Radiation exposure during complex endovascular aortic repair may be associated with tangible adverse effects in patients and operators. This study aimed to identify the steps of highest radiation exposure during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR) and to investigate potential intraoperative factors affecting radiation exposure. METHODS: Prospective data of 31 consecutive patients managed exclusively with four-fenestration endografts between March 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Leveraging the conformity of the applied technique, every FEVAR operation was considered a combination of six overall stages composed of 28 standardized steps. Intraoperative parameters, including air kerma, dose area product, fluoroscopy time, and number of digital subtraction angiographies (DSAs) and average angulations were collected and analyzed for each step. RESULTS: The mean procedure duration and fluoroscopy time was 140 minutes (standard deviation [SD], 32 minutes), and 40 minutes (SD, 9.1 minutes), respectively. The mean air kerma was 814 mGy (SD, 498 mGy), and the mean dose area product was 66.8 Gy cm2 (SD, 33 Gy cm2). The percentage of air kerma of the entire procedure was distributed throughout the following procedure stages: preparation (13.9%), main body (9.6%), target vessel cannulation (27.8%), stent deployment (29.1%), distal aortoiliac grafting (14.3%), and completion (5.3%). DSAs represented 23.0% of the total air kerma. Target vessel cannulation and stent deployment presented the highest mean lateral angulation (67 and 63 degrees, respectively). Using linear regression, each minute of continuous fluoroscopy added 18.9 mGy of air kerma (95% confidence interval, 17.6-20.2 mGy), and each DSA series added 21.1 mGy of air kerma (95% confidence interval, 17.9-24.3 mGy). Body mass index and lateral angulation were significantly associated with increased air kerma (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cannulation of target vessels and bridging stent deployment are the steps requiring the highest radiation exposure during FEVAR cases. Optimized operator protection during these steps is mandatory.

The addition of a leaded arm sleeve to leaded aprons further decreases operator upper outer quadrant chest wall radiation dose during fluoroscopically guided interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer most commonly occurs in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ) chest wall (CW). The effectiveness of routine leaded aprons to protect this region of the body in interventionalists during fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs) is unknown. Given the high lifetime attributable risks of prolonged occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and the increasing number of practicing female vascular surgeons and interventionalists, we sought to determine if the use of a leaded arm shield would offer additional protection to the lateral CW and axilla in operators compared with routine leaded aprons. METHODS: Effectiveness of leaded sleeves in attenuating radiation dose to the axilla and UOQ was evaluated in clinical practice and simulated scenarios. In the clinical setting, optically stimulated luminescence nanoDot detectors were placed at the UOQ lateral CW position, both over and under a standard leaded apron vest with and without the addition of an antimony/bismuth Enviro-Lite sleeve on two vascular surgeons performing FGIs. In the simulation, nanoDots were similarly placed on an anthropomorphic phantom positioned to represent a primary operator performing right femoral access. Fluorography was performed on 12-inch-thick acrylic scatter phantom at 80 kVp for an exposure of 3 Gy reference air kerma. Experiments were done with and without the sleeve. Paired Wilcoxon and χ2 tests were performed to identify the statistical significance of radiation attenuation. RESULTS: Operator UOQ CW dose was measured during 61 FGIs: 33 cases (54%) with and 28 cases (46%) without the sleeve. Median procedure reference air kerma and fluoroscopy time was 180 mGy (interquartile range [IQR], 85-447 mGy) and 21 minutes (IQR, 11-39 minutes) when the sleeve was worn vs 100 mGy (IQR, 67-270 mGy) and 11 minutes (IQR, 6.3-25 minutes) without the sleeve. Radiation dose to the operator's UOQ was reduced by 96% (IQR, 85%-96%) when the sleeve was present and by 62% (IQR, 44%-82%; P < .001) without the sleeve. In the simulated setting, the sleeve reduced the radiation dose to the UOQ compared with the apron alone (96% vs 67%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Routine leaded aprons do attenuate the majority of UOQ chest wall radiation dose; however, the addition of a lead-equivalent sleeve further significantly reduces this dose. Because this area of the body has a high incidence of cancer formation, additional protection, especially to female interventionalists, seems prudent. Vascular surgeons should consider using a protective sleeve with their personal protective equipment when performing complex fluoroscopically guided procedures.

Development and Validation of an Electronic Adverse Event Model for Patient Safety Surveillance in Interventional Radiology.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive adverse event (AE) surveillance programs in interventional radiology (IR) are rare. Our aim was to develop and validate a retrospective electronic surveillance model to identify outpatient IR procedures that are likely to have an AE, to support patient safety and quality improvement. METHODS: We identified outpatient IR procedures performed in the period from October 2017 to September 2019 from the Veterans Health Administration (n = 135,283) and applied electronic triggers based on posyprocedure care to flag cases with a potential AE. From the trigger-flagged cases, we randomly sampled n = 1,500 for chart review to identify AEs. We also randomly sampled n = 600 from the unflagged cases. Chart-reviewed cases were merged with patient, procedure, and facility factors to estimate a mixed-effects logistic regression model designed to predict whether an AE occurred. Using model fit and criterion validity, we determined the best predicted probability threshold to identify cases with a likely AE. We reviewed a random sample of 200 cases above the threshold and 100 cases from below the threshold from October 2019 to March 2020 (n = 20,849) for model validation. RESULTS: In our development sample of mostly trigger-flagged cases, 444 of 2,096 cases (21.8%) had an AE. The optimal predicted probability threshold for a likely AE from our surveillance model was >50%, with positive predictive value of 68.9%, sensitivity of 38.3%, and specificity of 95.3%. In validation, chart-reviewed cases with AE probability >50% had a positive predictive value of 63% (n = 203). For the period from October 2017 to March 2020, the model identified approximately 70 IR cases per month that were likely to have an AE. CONCLUSIONS: This electronic trigger-based approach to AE surveillance could be used for patient-safety reporting and quality review.

Comparison of ultrasound- versus fluoroscopy-guidEd femorAl access In tranS-catheter aortic valve replacement In the Era of contempoRary devices: The EASIER registry.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications (VCs) still represent one of the principal concerns of trans-femoral trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). New-generation devices can minimize such complications but the arterial access management is left to the operator's choice. This study aims to describe the rate of VCs in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices and to determine whether an ultrasound-guided (USG) vs. a fluoroscopy-guided (FG) femoral access management has an impact on their prevention. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices were analyzed from January 2022 to October 2022 in five tertiary care centers. Femoral accesses were managed according to the operator's preferences. All the patients underwent a pre-discharge peripheral ultrasound control. VCs and bleedings were the main endpoints of interest. RESULTS: A total of 458 consecutive patients were enrolled (274 in the USG group and 184 in the FG group). VCs occurred in 6.5 % of the patients (5.2 % minor and 1.3 % major). There was no difference between the USG and the FG groups in terms of any VCs (7.3 % vs. 5.4 %; p = 0.4), or any VARC-3 bleedings (6.9 % vs 6 %, p = 0.9). At logistic regression analysis, the two guidance strategies did not result as predictors of VCs (odds Ratio 0.8, 95 % Confidence Interval 0.46-1.4; P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices, the occurrence of VCs is low and mostly represented by minor VCs. USG and FG modalities did not affect the rate of VCs.

Efficacy and User Experience of a Novel X-Ray Shield on Operator Radiation Exposure During Cardiac Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiation shielding is mandatory during cardiac catheterization, but there is a need to improve efficacy and ease of use. METHODS: The aim of the study was to assess the shielding effect and user feedback for a novel flexible multiconfiguration x-ray shield (FMX). The 0.5-mm Pb equivalent FMX can be selectively configured to accommodate for variations in patient morphology, access site, and type of procedure with maintained visualization, vascular access, and shielding. To evaluate efficacy, relative operator dose (operator dose indexed for given dose) was measured during 103 consecutive procedures randomized in a 1:1 proportion to the current routine setup or FMX+routine. User feedback was collected on function, relevance, and likelihood of adoption into clinical practice. RESULTS: Median relative operator dose was 3.63 µSv/µGy·m2×10-3 (IQR, 2.62-6.37) with routine setup and 0.57 µSv/µGy·m2×10-3 (IQR, 0.27-1.06) with FMX+routine, which amounts to an 84.4% reduction (P<0.001). For 500 procedures/year, this corresponds to an estimated yearly dose reduction from 3.6 to 0.7 mSv. User feedback regarding size, functionality, ease of use, likely to use, critical issues, shielding, draping, procedure time, vascular access, patient discomfort, and risk was 99% positive. No critical issues were identified. There was no significant difference in patient radiation exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The FMX reduces radiation exposure considerably. The FMX represents an effective and attractive solution for radiation protection that can easily be implemented in existing workflow. FMX has potential for general use with maintained visualization, vascular access, and shielding in routine cardiac catheterization.

Manual aspiration of a pneumothorax after CT-guided lung biopsy: outcomes and risk factors.

OBJECTIVE: Quantify the outcomes following pneumothorax aspiration and influence upon chest drain insertion. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent aspiration for the treatment of a pneumothorax following a CT percutaneous transthoracic lung biopsy (CT-PTLB) from January 1, 2010 to October 1, 2020 at a tertiary center. Patient, lesion and procedural factors associated with chest drain insertion were assessed with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients underwent aspiration for a pneumothorax following CT-PTLB. Overall, 81 patients (79.4%) had a successful pneumothorax aspiration and were discharged home on the same day. In 21 patients (20.6%), the pneumothorax continued to increase post-aspiration and required chest drain insertion with hospital admission. Significant risk factors requiring chest drain insertion included upper/middle lobe biopsy location [odds ratio (OR) 6.46; 95% CI 1.77-23.65, p = 0.003], supine biopsy position (OR 7.06; 95% CI 2.24-22.21, p < 0.001), emphysema (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.10-8.87, p = 0.028), greater needle depth ≥2 cm (OR 4.00; 95% CI 1.44-11.07, p = 0.005) and a larger pneumothorax (axial depth ≥3 cm) (OR 16.00; 95% CI 4.76-53.83, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, larger pneumothorax size and supine position during biopsy remained significant for chest drain insertion. Aspiration of a larger pneumothorax (radial depths ≥3 cm and ≥4 cm) had a 50% rate of success. Aspiration of a smaller pneumothorax (radial depth 2-3 cm and <2 cm) had an 82.6% and 100% rate of success, respectively. CONCLUSION: Aspiration of pneumothorax after CT-PTLB can help reduce chest drain insertion in approximately 50% of patients with larger pneumothoraces and even more so with smaller pneumothoraces (>80%). ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Aspiration of pneumothoraces up to 3 cm was often associated with avoiding chest drain insertion and allowing for earlier discharge.