Radiation safety in the catheterization laboratory

Current perspectives and practices

Rohan Menon, Aris Karatasakis, Siddharth Patel, Barbara A. Danek, Judit Karacsonyi, Bavana V. Rangan, Tayo Addo, Dharam Kumbhani, Samir Kapadia, Michael Luna, Ehtisham Mahmud, Charles Chambers, Subhash Banerjee, Emmanouil S. Brilakis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is great variability in radiation safety practices in cardiac catheterization laboratories around the world. METHODS: We performed an international online survey on radiation safety including interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 570 responses were received from various geographic locations, including the United States (77.9%), Asia (7.9%), Europe (6.8%), Canada (2.8%), and Mexico and Central America (2.1%). Most respondents (73%) were interventional cardiologists and 23% were electrophysiologists, with 14.4 ± 10.2 years in practice. Most respondents (75%) were not aware of their radiation dose during the past year and 21.2% had never attended a radiation safety course; 58.9% are "somewhat worried" and 31.5% are "very worried" about chronic radiation exposure. Back pain due to lead use was reported by 43.0% and radiation-related health complications including cataracts and malignancies were reported by 6.3%. Only 37.5% of respondents had an established radiation dose threshold for initiating patient follow-up. When comparing United States operators with the other respondents, the former were more likely to attend radiation safety courses (P<.001), wear dosimeters (P<.001), know their annual personal radiation exposure (P<.001), and have an established patient radiation dose threshold (P<.001). They were also more likely to use the fluoro store function, under-Table shields, leaded glasses, ceiling lead glass, and disposable radiation shields, and were more concerned about the adverse effects of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation safety is of concern to catheterization laboratory personnel, yet there is significant variability in radiation protection practices, highlighting several opportunities for standardization and improvement. radiation safety catheterization laboratory survey.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)296-300
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Invasive Cardiology
Volume30
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Catheterization
Radiation
Safety
Laboratory Personnel
Central America
Geographic Locations
Radiation Protection
Radiation Effects
Back Pain
Cardiac Catheterization
Mexico
Cataract
Canada
Glass
Blood Vessels
Surveys and Questionnaires
Health

Keywords

  • Catheterization laboratory
  • Radiation safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Radiation safety in the catheterization laboratory : Current perspectives and practices. / Menon, Rohan; Karatasakis, Aris; Patel, Siddharth; Danek, Barbara A.; Karacsonyi, Judit; Rangan, Bavana V.; Addo, Tayo; Kumbhani, Dharam; Kapadia, Samir; Luna, Michael; Mahmud, Ehtisham; Chambers, Charles; Banerjee, Subhash; Brilakis, Emmanouil S.

In: Journal of Invasive Cardiology, Vol. 30, No. 8, 01.08.2018, p. 296-300.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Menon, R, Karatasakis, A, Patel, S, Danek, BA, Karacsonyi, J, Rangan, BV, Addo, T, Kumbhani, D, Kapadia, S, Luna, M, Mahmud, E, Chambers, C, Banerjee, S & Brilakis, ES 2018, 'Radiation safety in the catheterization laboratory: Current perspectives and practices', Journal of Invasive Cardiology, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 296-300.
Menon R, Karatasakis A, Patel S, Danek BA, Karacsonyi J, Rangan BV et al. Radiation safety in the catheterization laboratory: Current perspectives and practices. Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2018 Aug 1;30(8):296-300.
Menon, Rohan ; Karatasakis, Aris ; Patel, Siddharth ; Danek, Barbara A. ; Karacsonyi, Judit ; Rangan, Bavana V. ; Addo, Tayo ; Kumbhani, Dharam ; Kapadia, Samir ; Luna, Michael ; Mahmud, Ehtisham ; Chambers, Charles ; Banerjee, Subhash ; Brilakis, Emmanouil S. / Radiation safety in the catheterization laboratory : Current perspectives and practices. In: Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2018 ; Vol. 30, No. 8. pp. 296-300.
@article{51acac627aab48b2aca35823e2495126,
title = "Radiation safety in the catheterization laboratory: Current perspectives and practices",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: There is great variability in radiation safety practices in cardiac catheterization laboratories around the world. METHODS: We performed an international online survey on radiation safety including interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 570 responses were received from various geographic locations, including the United States (77.9{\%}), Asia (7.9{\%}), Europe (6.8{\%}), Canada (2.8{\%}), and Mexico and Central America (2.1{\%}). Most respondents (73{\%}) were interventional cardiologists and 23{\%} were electrophysiologists, with 14.4 ± 10.2 years in practice. Most respondents (75{\%}) were not aware of their radiation dose during the past year and 21.2{\%} had never attended a radiation safety course; 58.9{\%} are {"}somewhat worried{"} and 31.5{\%} are {"}very worried{"} about chronic radiation exposure. Back pain due to lead use was reported by 43.0{\%} and radiation-related health complications including cataracts and malignancies were reported by 6.3{\%}. Only 37.5{\%} of respondents had an established radiation dose threshold for initiating patient follow-up. When comparing United States operators with the other respondents, the former were more likely to attend radiation safety courses (P<.001), wear dosimeters (P<.001), know their annual personal radiation exposure (P<.001), and have an established patient radiation dose threshold (P<.001). They were also more likely to use the fluoro store function, under-Table shields, leaded glasses, ceiling lead glass, and disposable radiation shields, and were more concerned about the adverse effects of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation safety is of concern to catheterization laboratory personnel, yet there is significant variability in radiation protection practices, highlighting several opportunities for standardization and improvement. radiation safety catheterization laboratory survey.",
keywords = "Catheterization laboratory, Radiation safety",
author = "Rohan Menon and Aris Karatasakis and Siddharth Patel and Danek, {Barbara A.} and Judit Karacsonyi and Rangan, {Bavana V.} and Tayo Addo and Dharam Kumbhani and Samir Kapadia and Michael Luna and Ehtisham Mahmud and Charles Chambers and Subhash Banerjee and Brilakis, {Emmanouil S.}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "296--300",
journal = "Journal of Invasive Cardiology",
issn = "1042-3931",
publisher = "HMP Communications",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiation safety in the catheterization laboratory

T2 - Current perspectives and practices

AU - Menon, Rohan

AU - Karatasakis, Aris

AU - Patel, Siddharth

AU - Danek, Barbara A.

AU - Karacsonyi, Judit

AU - Rangan, Bavana V.

AU - Addo, Tayo

AU - Kumbhani, Dharam

AU - Kapadia, Samir

AU - Luna, Michael

AU - Mahmud, Ehtisham

AU - Chambers, Charles

AU - Banerjee, Subhash

AU - Brilakis, Emmanouil S.

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: There is great variability in radiation safety practices in cardiac catheterization laboratories around the world. METHODS: We performed an international online survey on radiation safety including interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 570 responses were received from various geographic locations, including the United States (77.9%), Asia (7.9%), Europe (6.8%), Canada (2.8%), and Mexico and Central America (2.1%). Most respondents (73%) were interventional cardiologists and 23% were electrophysiologists, with 14.4 ± 10.2 years in practice. Most respondents (75%) were not aware of their radiation dose during the past year and 21.2% had never attended a radiation safety course; 58.9% are "somewhat worried" and 31.5% are "very worried" about chronic radiation exposure. Back pain due to lead use was reported by 43.0% and radiation-related health complications including cataracts and malignancies were reported by 6.3%. Only 37.5% of respondents had an established radiation dose threshold for initiating patient follow-up. When comparing United States operators with the other respondents, the former were more likely to attend radiation safety courses (P<.001), wear dosimeters (P<.001), know their annual personal radiation exposure (P<.001), and have an established patient radiation dose threshold (P<.001). They were also more likely to use the fluoro store function, under-Table shields, leaded glasses, ceiling lead glass, and disposable radiation shields, and were more concerned about the adverse effects of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation safety is of concern to catheterization laboratory personnel, yet there is significant variability in radiation protection practices, highlighting several opportunities for standardization and improvement. radiation safety catheterization laboratory survey.

AB - BACKGROUND: There is great variability in radiation safety practices in cardiac catheterization laboratories around the world. METHODS: We performed an international online survey on radiation safety including interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 570 responses were received from various geographic locations, including the United States (77.9%), Asia (7.9%), Europe (6.8%), Canada (2.8%), and Mexico and Central America (2.1%). Most respondents (73%) were interventional cardiologists and 23% were electrophysiologists, with 14.4 ± 10.2 years in practice. Most respondents (75%) were not aware of their radiation dose during the past year and 21.2% had never attended a radiation safety course; 58.9% are "somewhat worried" and 31.5% are "very worried" about chronic radiation exposure. Back pain due to lead use was reported by 43.0% and radiation-related health complications including cataracts and malignancies were reported by 6.3%. Only 37.5% of respondents had an established radiation dose threshold for initiating patient follow-up. When comparing United States operators with the other respondents, the former were more likely to attend radiation safety courses (P<.001), wear dosimeters (P<.001), know their annual personal radiation exposure (P<.001), and have an established patient radiation dose threshold (P<.001). They were also more likely to use the fluoro store function, under-Table shields, leaded glasses, ceiling lead glass, and disposable radiation shields, and were more concerned about the adverse effects of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation safety is of concern to catheterization laboratory personnel, yet there is significant variability in radiation protection practices, highlighting several opportunities for standardization and improvement. radiation safety catheterization laboratory survey.

KW - Catheterization laboratory

KW - Radiation safety

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051345160&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051345160&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 296

EP - 300

JO - Journal of Invasive Cardiology

JF - Journal of Invasive Cardiology

SN - 1042-3931

IS - 8

ER -