Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes.

AIMS

Although underestimated by interventional cardiologists for a long time, radiation exposure of operators and patients is currently a major concern. The objective of the present operator-blinded registry was to compare related-peripheral arterial route radiation exposure of operators.

METHODS AND RESULTS

During 420 consecutive coronary angiograms (CAs) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), four interventional cardiologists were blindly screened. Radiation exposures were assessed using electronic personal dosimeters. Protection of operator was ensured using a lead apron, low leaded flaps, and leaded glass. Radiation exposure of operators was significantly higher using the radial route when compared with the femoral route for both CAs and CAs followed by ad hoc PCIs: 29.0 [1.0-195.0] microSv vs. 13.0 [1.0-164.0] microSv; P < 0.0001 and 69.5 [4.0-531.0] microSv vs. 41.0 [2.0-360.0] microSv; P = 0.018, respectively. Similarly, radiation exposure of patients was significantly higher using the radial route when compared with the femoral route for both CAs and CAs followed by ad hoc PCIs. Moreover, procedural durations and fluoroscopy times were significantly higher throughout the radial route.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the radial route decreases peripheral arterial complication rates, increased radiation exposure of operators despite extensive use of specific protection devices is currently a growing problem for the interventional cardiologist health. Radial route indication should be promptly reconsidered in the light of the present findings.