
==== Front
Curr Cardiol Rep
Curr Cardiol Rep
Current Cardiology Reports
1523-3782
1534-3170
Springer US New York

39052162
2102
10.1007/s11886-024-02102-w
New Therapies for Cardiovascular Disease (AA Bavry and MR Massoomi, Section Editors)
Implementing a ‘Lead [Apron]-Free’ Cardiac Catheterization: Current Status
Patel Akash H. 1
Patel Vishal 1
Tang Yicheng 1
Shah Sai 2
Tang George 1
Kern Morton J. mortonkern2007@gmail.com

3
1 https://ror.org/05t99sp05 grid.468726.9 0000 0004 0486 2046 Division of Cardiology, University of California, Irvine, California USA
2 https://ror.org/05t99sp05 grid.468726.9 0000 0004 0486 2046 Division of Internal Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California USA
3 https://ror.org/04gyf1771 grid.266093.8 0000 0001 0668 7243 Division of Cardiology, University of California – Irvine and VA Long Beach, Long Beach, California USA
25 7 2024
25 7 2024
2024
26 9 10211029
11 7 2024
© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
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.

Summary

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.

Keywords

Radiation Safety
Lead-Free
Cardiac Catheterization
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

As the field of percutaneous transcatheter interventions continues to include more complex procedures often requiring significantly more radiation exposure time. These procedures include but are not limited to multi vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), complex peripheral interventions, high risk-PCI, chronic total occlusion (CTO), transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral and tricuspid valves. Continuing interest in cath lab safety has focused on various health hazards from cataracts to cancer working in a fluoroscopic laboratory. [1–3]. Thyroid cancer and a disproportionate incidence of left-sided brain tumors (more than half being glioblastoma multiforme) have been reported among interventional cardiologists [4]. When discussing the cumulative detrimental health effects of working in a CCL, orthopedic injury (particularly those related to the lumbar and cervical spine) from heavy leaded aprons are often considered as collateral occupational damage [5, 6]. As the volume of complex procedures increases, physical stress associated with procedural performance will exacerbate the degree and prevalence of orthopedic injuries. For this reason alone, there are several innovative efforts aiming to reduce both radiation exposure and orthopedic injury within the CCL. This initiative, moving towards a “lead-free” environment, extends beyond increases in personal protective equipment and includes enhanced surrounding patient shielding at the table, partial room shielding, suspended radiation protection systems (SRPS), enclosed and remote operator shielding, and enhanced tube shielding and patient drape shields. This manuscript is designed to address current lead-free or lead-equivalent devices on the market and to give the reader a broad perspective on the innovative solutions to contain and reduce radiation scatter.

Patient Shielding at the table – The Eggnest XR

The EggNest XR System (Egg Medical (R)) is the second-generation radiation protection system developed on the Eggnest Protect platform. Developed by CEO and interventional cardiologist Dr. Robert Wilson, the system focuses on patient scattered radiation reduction. The EggNest XR system (Fig. 1) is comprised of a carbon-fiber sled base and mattress, with built in rigid but radiotranslucent CPR board, as well as shields positioned between the operator and patient to mitigate scatter radiation exposure with 0.5mm lead-equivalent. The key components of the EggNest XR system can be attached or replaced in a modular fashion with existing fluoroscopy systems, providing ease of application and use. Limitations include inability to be used in biplane systems or for neurointerventional cases. Leaded garments, including aprons, thyroid shields, and glasses still need to be worn. These limitations are highlighted in Table 1. The effectiveness of the EggNest system has been validated by studies done measuring scatter radiation at six key positions around the table in the five most common projections, resulting in a reduction of 88% to 94% of the total room scatter radiation [7]. Initial studies reported over 91% overall reduction. Investigations on scatter radiation report multiorgan effect upon the operator and cardiac catheterization laboratory personnel, noting sixfold increased risk in cataracts, threefold increased risk of skin, thyroid, and brain cancer, and twice the risk of cardiovascular disease compared to controls. [8]Fig. 1 The EggNest XR system is comprised of a carbon-fiber sled base and mattress, with built in CPR board, as well as shields positioned between the operator and patient to mitigate scatter radiation exposure with 0.5 mm lead-equivalent. (Reprinted with permission from EggNest XR Medical)

Table 1 This comprehensive summary table displays all eight current devices on the market to try and limit radiation exposure to the operator and cath lab staff.*

	Device Features	Pro’s	Con’s	
EggNest XR	- Carbon-fiber sled base and mattress

- Built in CPR board

	- Ability to add to existing fluoroscopy systems (modular design), minimizing overhaul need	- Leaded garments still required

- Cannot be used for biplane systems

- Cannot be used for neurointerventional cases

	
PROTEGO	- Upper shield mounted on a spring arm with magnets for quick deployment and release

- Two patient visualization screens with cameras

- Arm board built in radiation drapes

	- Allows for unimpeded C-arm motion

- Quick deployment and release mechanism

- Left/Right Cameras for constant patient visualization

	- Floor or ceiling space required for mounting mechanism

- Adds 100lbs reducing maximum bed weight

- Must be moved for visualization of upper arm complications or low femoral problems

	
RAMPART-IC	- Adjustable, motorized, lead-equivalent acrylic panel system

- Adjustable lower lead shields

	- Motorized system, allows ease of deployment and movement, with small footprint

- Multiple access sites for catheterization

	- System must be charged, which can take up to 10 h, but typically only once a year	
ZeroGravity	- A full body 1.0 mm lead shield suspended from either a ceiling mounted monorail, swing arm, or wheeled floor unit

- 0.5 mm acrylic face shield protects the head, eyes, and throat of the operator

	- Operator mobility

- Superior radiation shielding of head, neck, upper arms, and lower legs

- Reduction in orthopedic strain

- Ease of sterility

- Adaptability to operator height

	- Floor or ceiling space required for mounting mechanism

- Cost of mounting mechanism

	
Cathpax AF Cabin	- Wheeled, semi-enclosed cabin using panels of 2 mm lead equivalent acrylic

- Arm cutouts with a protective cuff

	- Reduction in orthopedic strain

- Ease of sterility

- No installation costs

	- Size of device limits use in tight spaces

- Potentially limited application to left femoral vessels and left radial artery access

- Limited adaptability to operator height

- Visual impairment through device

	
Radiaction Medical	- “Plug and Play” accessory to the C-Arm

- Flexible fins at the end of the device to reduce C-arm scatter

- Proximity sensors present for customized to accommodate varying patient size

	- Customizes fit to size and location of patient

- Does not impede access sites

	- Not yet approved for general market use

- Still requires use of lead

- Not compatible with biplane systems

	
Corindus CorPath 200	- Two major components: bedside unit and interventional cockpit	- High rate of device technical success in limited, small study

- Remote operator shielding for robotic system

	- Cost

- Requires training for robotic-assisted coronary PCI

- Limited to “simple” PCI

- Still requires a “scrubbed in” staff member to help load/unload equipment

	
RADPAD	- Lead-free surgical drape made of barium and bismuth	- Simple addition to any setup

- Cost effective

- Easy to position

	- Unclear benefits in operator radiation exposure at level of head	
*This table illustrates each device’s key features as well as its unique benefits as well as pitfalls

Partial room, large shielding system – The PROTEGO system

The Protego Radiation Protection System (Image Diagnostics, Inc.) incorporates large shields over the table to reduce scatter to the operator’s side of the x-ray tube coupled with patient shield pads as well as lower table shields using both rigid shields and flexible radiation resistant drapes. The following encompasses the enclosure PROTEGO System (Fig. 2A). First is a strategically angulated upper shield above the table designed to passively accommodate unimpeded C-arm motion. This is mounted on a spring arm and attached to the table via magnets allowing for quick deployment and release. The next component is a lower shield attached to the table to reduce scatter downstream. An operator side accessory shield is present to further reduce scatter. The operator can always see the patient with patient visualization screens with left and right cameras. The PROTEGO system also includes a flexible radiation drip that extends from the patient’s lower abdomen to thigh to reduce scatter. In addition, an arm board with built in radiation drapes are present to allow for radial access. Lastly there are separate disposable radiation drapes that cover flexible and fixed components of the PROTEGO system. This shielding system casts an umbrella of protection for the operator and the circulating CCL staff (seen in Fig. 2B). There is early promising data demonstrating the PROTEGO system’s excellent radiation protection [3, 9, 10]. This has also been reproduced in a small study, achieving “zero” radiation exposure (RE) in two-thirds of cases using the PROTEGO system [11]. It is important to highlight that this system adds 100lbs reducing the maximum tolerable patient weight for the cath lab table. More advantages and limitations are highlighted in Table 1.Fig. 2  A. Diagram of locations which are exposed to radiation in the cath lab. Dotted lines represent the Protego shielding. The yellow circle is the umbrella of radiation protection. Compared to the pre-structural heart disease era, there are now personnel located closer to the x-ray tube for anesthesia and TEE operations. 1. respiratory therapist and anesthesiologist; 2. operator, 3. operator assistant, 4. circulating nurses, 5. recording technician/nurse, 6. echocardiographer. (Modified figure courtesy of Dr. Robert Wilson. From Cath Lab Digest, April 2023.) B. The PROTEGO system comprises of an upper shield mounted on a spring arm and attached to the table via magnets allowing for quick deployment and release. The lower shield is attached to the table and an operator side accessory shield to further reduce scatter. There are 2 patient visualization screens with a right and left camera to give the operator constant view of the patient throughout the procedure. There is also an arm board built in radiation drapes to allow for safe radial access. (Reprinted with permission from Imaging Diagnostics, Inc.)

RAMPART-IC

The RAMPART-IC is an adjustable, motorized, lead-equivalent acrylic panel system developed by RAMPART-IC LLC. On the company’s website, CEO and interventional cardiologist Dr. Bob Foster shares his personal story of work injuries associated lead aprons, leading to the development of a lead-free system that is now the combined Rampart M1128 shielding system and Rampart L138 table-mounted shield. Together with the adjustable shields, the sterile drape system accommodates radial, femoral, and pedal access catheterization (Fig. 3). Key studies demonstrate no difference in fluoroscopy time, dose-area product, or scatter radiation compared to traditional shielding, however overall lower total body radiation for all three positions of operators, including primary (fellow), secondary (attending), and tertiary (technician). [12] A limitation to this system highlighted in Table 1 is that it is battery operated and requires the system to be charged, which can take up to 10 h for a full charge. Fortunately, the system typically requires charging only once a year during regular use, and it also has the option to remain plugged in during use.Fig. 3 The RAMPART-IC is an adjustable, motorized, lead-equivalent acrylic panel system. Together with the adjustable shields, the sterile drape system accommodates radial, femoral, and pedal access catheterization. (Reprinted with permission from RAMPART-IC LLC.)

Weight-Less, Suspended Lead Shielding – The Zero-Gravity [Biotronik]

Several systems have been designed with a focus on matching the operator mobility of wearable lead vests and aprons while providing equal or superior radiation protection. One such example is the ZeroGravity suspended personal radiation protection system. Originally developed by CFI Medical Solutions and later acquired by Biotronik, the ZeroGravity system (Fig. 4) is comprised of a full body 1.0 mm lead shield suspended from either a ceiling mounted monorail, swing arm, or wheeled floor unit. It is attached to the operator magnetically via a lightweight vest. An additional 0.5 mm acrylic face shield protects the head, eyes, and throat of the operator while providing direct visualization of the surgical field. Sterility is achieved using single use plastic coverings. This mounted adaptation of the traditional lead suit enables the operator to move freely around the operative table and suite while maintaining maximal radiation protection. All traditional arterial and venous access sites are feasible, as well as full manipulation of the imaging arm. Direct comparative studies of the ZeroGravity system against traditional lead and shields have demonstrated comparable radiation shielding in the torso with 87 -100% reduction in radiation dose to the head,eyes, neck, humerus, and tibia with ZeroGravity [13]. Additional studies have demonstrated lower total body [14] and head-level [15] radiation associated with use of the ZeroGravity system compared to traditional lead. In Savage et al., ergonomic survey of the testing operators reported superior comfort, less hassle, and less obstruction with use of ZeroGravity compared to traditional lead with shields. Further investigation is needed to comment on the prevention of chronic workplace orthopedic injuries when using a suspended lead system compared to conventional vests and aprons.Fig. 4  The ZeroGravity system is comprised of a full body 1.0 mm lead shield suspended from either a ceiling mounted monorail, swing arm, or wheeled floor unit. It is engaged to the operator magnetically via a lightweight vest. An additional 0.5 mm acrylic face shield protects the head, eyes, and throat of the operator while providing direct visualization of the surgical field. All traditional arterial and venous access sites are feasible, as well as full manipulation of the imaging arm. (Reprinted with permission from BIOTRONIK, Inc.)

Enclosed Operator Shielding – The CATHPAX AF Adjustable [for EP procedures only]

Another product available on the market is the Cathpax AF cabin, developed by Dr. Michel Haissaguerre of the University of Bordeaux. The system (Fig. 5) is comprised of a wheeled, semi-enclosed cabin built using panels of 2 mm lead equivalent acrylic, weighing 210 kg and designed to accommodate adults up to 190 cm in height. Arm cutouts with a protective cuff is featured, as well as additional shielding on the left side of the operator closest to the ionizing source. Sterility is achieved using proprietary disposable drape. The device is marketed to endovascular operators within interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, and other endovascular specialties utilizing fluoroscopy. Compared to traditional wearable lead protection, the Cathpax AF cabin has been shown to reduce total body radiation by 74% in an early concept case series of 38 neurointerventional procedures described by Guersen et al. [16] In particular, the Cathpax AF cabin reduced head radiation exposure by 96% (0.14 mSv to < detection limit), thyroid by 78% (0.09 mSv to 0.02 mSv), and left sided body by 89% (0.45 mSV to 0.05 mSv). Differences in hand exposure were less pronounced when comparing traditional wearable lead to Cathpax AF, with right middle finger showing comparable exposure (0.06 mSv to 0.07 mSv) and left middle finger showing marginally improved protection in the cabin (0.22 mSv to 0.16 mSv). Eye protection with Cathpax AF was comparable to leaded goggles in this study. Ergonomic difficulties with the sizable nature of the cabin and its rigid design were described, with 38% of cases scoring unsatisfactory in the realm of reflections in the leaded panels, 24% of cases scoring unsatisfactory in accessibility to the field, and 14% of cases scoring unsatisfactory in hand mobility. Specific to interventional cardiology, the ability to reach across the field to access left radial or femoral artery sheaths may become challenging for certain operator-patient combinations. As Cathpax AF is designed to be one-size-fit-all, operators or patients at extremes of body stature may encounter ergonomic challenges.Fig. 5 The Cathpax AF cabin is comprised of a wheeled, semi-enclosed cabin built using panels of 2 mm lead equivalent acrylic, weighing 210 kg and designed to accommodate adults up to 190 cm in height. Arm cutouts with a protective cuff are featured, as well as additional shielding on the left side of the operator closest to the ionizing source. The device is marketed to endovascular operators within interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, and other endovascular specialties utilizing fluoroscopy. Specific to interventional cardiology, the ability to reach across the field to access left radial or femoral artery sheaths may become challenging for certain operator-patient combinations. (Reprinted with permission from Lemer Pax)

Remote Operator Shielding for Robotic System—Corindus CorPath 200 System

While devices and protective gear have been tested to address the occupational hazards associated with procedures in CCL, researchers in 2012 evaluated the safety as well as the clinical and technical success of robotic-assisted coronary PCI [17]. 164 patients underwent PCI at 9 sites with the robotic CorPath 200 System (Corindus Vascular Robotics, Natick, Massachusetts). Those with documented obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and evidence of ischemia were included. Those with complex disease were excluded [prior CABG, complex lesions requiring rotational atherectomy, intraluminal thrombus, severe tortuosity or calcification, bifurcation lesions, ostial lesions, and unprotected left main coronary arteries]. The CorPath 200 was built to assist with coronary PCI and is comprised of 2 major components: the bedside unit and the interventional cockpit. As expected, the interventionalist is stationed at the cockpit (Fig. 6) and remotely performs the PCI using the joystick and touch-screen buttons of the CorPath 200’s console. Cables running from the console to the robotic drive deliver commands which are relayed to a sterile cassette placed on top of the drive. The robotic cassette imposes axial and rotational forces on the intracoronary devices as it is loaded with interventional devices and is connected to the guide catheters. The CorPath 200 was developed to work with all 0.014-inch guidewires, rapid-exchange coronary angioplasty balloons, and stent delivery systems. Inside the cockpit, fluoroscopic, electrocardiographic, and hemodynamic images are visualized from a closer distance on the system's monitors. Both primary endpoints were successfully met. Clinical procedural success, which was defined as < 30% residual stenosis at the completion of the procedure without major adverse CV events within 30 days, was achieved in 160/164 patients. Additionally, there was a 95.2% reduction in median radiation exposure to the operators measured at the procedural table versus the interventional cockpit (20.6 vs 0.98 μGy, p < 0.0001). This study demonstrates that robotic assisted PCI can potentially used without affecting patient safety and procedural performance, at least for straightforward PCI. This device shows promise, however cost and further training for robotic assisted coronary PCI and possible delays in transitioning to a manual control during unforeseen procedural complications may be a limiting factor (Table 1). [17] When an unforeseen complication occurs and/or the primary operator would like to resume manual control, an “emergency stop” button located on the robotic console is pressed. Once this is pressed the operator has complete manual control and would need to enter the CCL including wearing lead and scrubbing in which can create delays in case of an emergency. One CCL staff member is required to be scrubbed and leaded to help load and unload equipment.Fig. 6  The Corindus CorPath 200 (indicated by the red arrow) was built to assist with coronary PCI and is comprised of 2 major components: the bedside unit [left part of the image] and the interventional cockpit [right part of the image]. The interventionalist is stationed at the cockpit and remotely performs the PCI using the joystick and touch-screen buttons of the CorPath 200’s console. The robotic cassette imposes axial and rotational forces on the intracoronary devices as it is loaded with interventional devices and is connected to the guide catheters. The CorPath 200 was developed to work with all 0.014-inch guidewires, rapid-exchange coronary angioplasty balloons, and stent delivery systems. (Reprinted with permission from Philips)

X-ray Tube Shielding—Radiaction Medical

Radiaction Medical is one of the newest concepts to aid in providing comprehensive radiation protection. This device aids in reducing C-arm scatter by implanting a “plug and play” accessory to the C-arm. The accessory (Fig. 7) implements a “tunnel” mechanism with flexible fins at the end of the device to reduce C-arm scatter. The device has proximity sensors built into the device to allow for customized fit based on the size and location of each patient. Conceptionally this product mirrors the 360-degree radiation scatter protection design of the Eggnest XR. This product is one of the newest concepts within the field of radiation protection, and a current small internal study show promising results with an over 80% reduction in radiation exposure among electrophysiology (EP) ablations and cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations [18]. Further advantages are highlighted in Table 1. This product is not currently on the market for approved use at this time.Fig. 7 Radiaction Medical aids in reducing C-arm scatter by implanting a “plug and play” accessory to the C-arm, employing a “tunnel” mechanism with flexible fins at the end of the device to reduce C-arm scatter. The device has proximity sensors built into the device to allow for customized fit based on the size and location of each patient. (Reprinted with permission from Radiaction Medical)

Disposable Adjunctive Lead Shielding Pads—RAPAD/NOPAD/SHAMPAD

The RADPAD is a lead-equivalent surgical drape made of barium and bismuth developed to be an environmentally friendly product that can effectively attenuate scatter radiation to protect physicians and medical staff. The absorbing shield is typically placed flat on top of the patient in between the image intensifier and the primary operator. (Fig. 8). RADPAD has shown significant reduction in mean total radiation exposure to the primary operator when undergoing transradial coronary angiography (282.8 ± 32.55 vs. 367.8 ± 105.4 μSv, P < 0.0001) [19]. A similar reduction is using RADPAD in transfemoral cases as well as complex PCI despite similar fluoroscopy times. [20, 21]. RADPAD has also been shown to significantly reduce mean primary operatory radiation dose during elective transcatheter aortic valve implantation. [22]Fig. 8 The RADPAD is a lead-free surgical drape made of barium and bismuth developed to be an environmentally friendly product that can effectively attenuate scatter radiation to protect physicians [green] and medical staff [blue]. The absorbing shield is typically placed flat on top of the patient [on table] in between the image intensifier and the primary operator. (Reprinted with permission from RADPAD)

While the aforementioned studies investigated RADPADs efficacy when compared to conventional shielding methods, researchers in 2017 performed a sham-controlled, double-blind, all-corner, large randomized trial analyzing the efficacy of RADPAD when compared to conventional shielding measures (NOPAD) and a sham shield (SHAMPAD) [23]. Utilization of the RADPAD was associated with a 44% relative operator exposure reduction compared to the SHAMPAD (P < 0.001) and 20% reduction compared to the NOPAD. This study, the largest to investigate the impact of the shield, supports the RADPADs routine use in CCL. The RADPAD is an effective sterile disposable lead shielding pad that may one day be commonplace in CCL given the increasing complexity of procedures and the known risks from exposure to low-dose radiation.

Conclusion

Innovative efforts to move towards a lead-apron free CCL continue to emerge. Some protection systems are already currently being utilized, and others are still in development. Each solution strives to provide maximum protection for staff while maintaining mobility for the operator to work freely. From radiation pads to entire operator enclosure devices, each protection system has its own unique advantages and limitations. In addition to employing novel shielding systems, radiation safety remains a principal duty of the operators to practice proven radiation reduction methods during procedures. Coupled with the innovative efforts described above, the lives of our patients and cath lab teams will be significantly improved. With the help and support of healthcare systems and administrators we can implement these innovative efforts to move closer to a lead-apron free CCL.

Author Contributions

A.P. Organized the main manuscript, obtained images from manufacturers including permission to use, and wrote the introduction, conclusion and wrote the body for PROTEGO.

V.P wrote section of EggNest - XR and RAMPART-IC

Y.T wrote section on Zero Gravity [Biotronik] and CATHPAX A

S.S wrote section on Corindus CorPath + RADPAD

G.T. designed and created the table as well as helped with final edits.

M.K. helped come up with project idea, guided us through the entire writing process as well provided feedback on each revision.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study

Declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests..

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. LW, Klein, et al. SCAI multi-society position statement on occupational health hazards of the catheterization laboratory: shifting the paradigm for healthcare workers’ protection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(14):1718–24.
2. Gutierrez-Barrios A Radiation protection for the interventional cardiologist: Practical approach and innovations World J Cardiol 2022 14 1 1 10.4330/wjc.v14.i1.1 35126868
Gutierrez-Barrios A, et al. Radiation protection for the interventional cardiologist: Practical approach and innovations. World J Cardiol. 2022;14(1):1.35126868 10.4330/wjc.v14.i1.1
3. Roguin A Update on Radiation Safety in the Cath Lab-Moving Toward a “Lead-Free” Environment J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv 2023 2 4 101040 39131633
Roguin A, et al. Update on Radiation Safety in the Cath Lab-Moving Toward a “Lead-Free” Environment. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023;2(4):101040.39131633
4. Roguin A Goldstein J Bar O Goldstein JA Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures Am J Cardiol 2013 111 9 1368 1372 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060 23419190
Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(9):1368–72.23419190 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060
5. Klein LW Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment Radiol 2009 250 2 538 544 10.1148/radiol.2502082558
Klein LW, et al. Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. Radiol. 2009;250(2):538–44.10.1148/radiol.2502082558
6. Cammann VL Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study Clin Res Cardiol 2023 112 5 605 13 10.1007/s00392-022-02142-8 36646858
Cammann VL, et al. Effectiveness of radiation protection systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a comparative study. Clin Res Cardiol. 2023;112(5):605–13.36646858 10.1007/s00392-022-02142-8
7. Wilson R A new device to markedly reduce cardiac Cath lab radiation levels J Am Coll Cardiol 2018 72 13 103 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1376
Wilson R, et al. A new device to markedly reduce cardiac Cath lab radiation levels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(13):103.10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1376
8. Andreassi MG Occupational health risks in cardiac catheterization laboratory workers Circ Cardiovasc Interventions 2016 9 4 e003273 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003273
Andreassi MG, et al. Occupational health risks in cardiac catheterization laboratory workers. Circ Cardiovasc Interventions. 2016;9(4):e003273.10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003273
9. SR, Dixon, et al. A novel catheterization laboratory radiation shielding system: results of pre-clinical testing. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;36:51–5.
10. M, Rabah, et al. A novel comprehensive radiation shielding system eliminates need for personal lead aprons in the catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;101(1):79–86.
11. Rizik DG Comprehensive radiation shield minimizes operator radiation exposure and obviates need for lead aprons J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr & Interv 2023 2 3 100603 39130703
Rizik DG, et al. Comprehensive radiation shield minimizes operator radiation exposure and obviates need for lead aprons. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr & Interv. 2023;2(3):100603.39130703
12. Lisko JC Radiation Exposure Using Rampart vs Standard Lead Aprons and Shields During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv 2023 13 101184
Lisko JC, et al. Radiation Exposure Using Rampart vs Standard Lead Aprons and Shields During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023;13:101184.
13. Savage C Evaluation of a suspended personal radiation protection system vs conventional apron and shields in clinical interventional procedures Open J Radiol 2013 3 3 143 10.4236/ojrad.2013.33024
Savage C, et al. Evaluation of a suspended personal radiation protection system vs conventional apron and shields in clinical interventional procedures. Open J Radiol. 2013;3(3):143.10.4236/ojrad.2013.33024
14. Haussen DC Van Der Bom IMJ Nogueira RG A prospective case control comparison of the ZeroGravity system versus a standard lead apron as radiation protection strategy in neuroendovascular procedures J Neurointerventional Surg 2015 8 1052 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012038
Haussen DC, Van Der Bom IMJ, Nogueira RG. A prospective case control comparison of the ZeroGravity system versus a standard lead apron as radiation protection strategy in neuroendovascular procedures. J Neurointerventional Surg. 2015;8:1052.10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-012038
15. Salcido-Rios J Suspended lead suit and physician radiation doses during coronary angiography Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2022 99 4 981 988 10.1002/ccd.30047 34967086
Salcido-Rios J, et al. Suspended lead suit and physician radiation doses during coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99(4):981–8.34967086 10.1002/ccd.30047
16. Guersen J Use of a prototype radioprotection cabin in vascular neuroradiology: Dosimetry and ergonomics J Neuroradiol 2015 42 6 326 331 10.1016/j.neurad.2015.04.005 26026192
Guersen J, et al. Use of a prototype radioprotection cabin in vascular neuroradiology: Dosimetry and ergonomics. J Neuroradiol. 2015;42(6):326–31.26026192 10.1016/j.neurad.2015.04.005
17. Weisz G Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study J Am Coll Cardiol 2013 61 15 1596 1600 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.045 23500318
Weisz G, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1596–600.23500318 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.045
18. Laish-Farkash A A novel robotic radiation shielding device for electrophysiologic procedures: A prospective study Am Heart J 2023 261 127 136 10.1016/j.ahj.2023.03.009 37225386
Laish-Farkash A, et al. A novel robotic radiation shielding device for electrophysiologic procedures: A prospective study. Am Heart J. 2023;261:127–36.37225386 10.1016/j.ahj.2023.03.009
19. Politi L Reduction of scatter radiation during transradial percutaneous coronary angiography: a randomized trial using a lead-free radiation shield Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012 79 1 97 102 10.1002/ccd.22947 21520391
Politi L, et al. Reduction of scatter radiation during transradial percutaneous coronary angiography: a randomized trial using a lead-free radiation shield. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79(1):97–102.21520391 10.1002/ccd.22947
20. Kherad B Efficacy of RADPAD protective drape during coronary angiography Herz 2018 43 4 310 314 10.1007/s00059-017-4560-7 28389764
Kherad B, et al. Efficacy of RADPAD protective drape during coronary angiography. Herz. 2018;43(4):310–4.28389764 10.1007/s00059-017-4560-7
21. Murphy JC Efficacy of the RADPAD protective drape during real world complex percutaneous coronary intervention procedures Am J Cardiol 2011 108 10 1408 1410 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.061 21861961
Murphy JC, et al. Efficacy of the RADPAD protective drape during real world complex percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(10):1408–10.21861961 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.061
22. Sharma D Efficacy of RADPAD® protection drape in reducing radiation exposure to the primary operator during Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Minerva Cardioangiologica 2015 64 1 41 46 25900558
Sharma D, et al. Efficacy of RADPAD® protection drape in reducing radiation exposure to the primary operator during Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). Minerva Cardioangiologica. 2015;64(1):41–6.25900558
23. Vlastra W Efficacy of the RADPAD protection drape in reducing operators’ radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory: a sham-controlled randomized trial Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017 10 11 e006058 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006058 29089313
Vlastra W, et al. Efficacy of the RADPAD protection drape in reducing operators’ radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory: a sham-controlled randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(11):e006058.29089313 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006058
