These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Helping to know if you are properly protected while working in interventional cardiology.
    Author: Vano E, Rm SC, Jm FS.
    Journal: J Radiol Prot; 2020 Nov 11; 40(4):. PubMed ID: 33080586.
    Abstract:
    Occupational protection is still a challenge for interventional cardiology. One of the main problems is the occasional improper use of the ceiling suspended screen. We present a methodology to audit the correct use of the shielding using active electronic dosimeters. To improve the protection, we suggest the use of an alert based on the ratio between the occupational dose per procedure, measured by a personal electronic dosimeter over the lead apron, and the dose measured by an unshielded dosimeter, located at the C-arm. The new electronic dosimeters and the automatic dose management systems allow processing the dosimetric data for individual procedures and for the radiation events, sending the values (wireless) to a central database. We selected six interventional cardiologists and analysed 385 interventional procedures involving about 30 000 radiation events. Our results suggest that for individual procedures, standard values of the ratio between operator dose and the C-arm reference dose, should be between 1%-2% for a proper use of the shielding. Percentage values ≥5%-10% for individual procedures, require an analysis of the different radiation events to identify the lack of occupational protection and suggest corrective actions. In our sample, half of the operators should improve the use of the shielding in around 20% of the procedures. Using this ratio as an alert to operators allows optimising occupational radiation protection and discriminating between high occupational doses derived from complex procedures and high doses due to the improper use of the protective screen.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]