Cardiology Department, Policlinico Casilino-ASL RM B, Rome, Italy.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Jun;4(3):226-31. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.961185. Epub 2011 May 17.
Transradial percutaneous coronary procedures may be effectively performed through the right radial approach (RRA) or the left radial approach (LRA), but data on radiation dose absorbed by operators comparing the two approaches are lacking. The aim of the present study was to evaluate radiation dose absorbed by operators during coronary procedures through the RRA and LRA.
Three operators were equipped with 5 different dosimeters (left wrist, shoulder, thorax outside the lead apron, thorax under the lead apron, and thyroid) during RRA or LRA for coronary procedures. Each month, the dosimeters were analyzed to determine the radiation dose absorbed. From February to December 2009, 390 patients were randomly assigned to the RRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years) or the LRA (185 patients; age, 66±11 years). There were no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (for RRA, 369 seconds; interquartile range, 134 to 857 seconds; for LRA, 362 seconds; interquartile range, 142 to 885 seconds; P=0.58) between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in monthly radiation dose at the thorax (0.85±0.46 mSv for RRA and 1.12±0.78 mSv for LRA, P=0.33), at the thyroid (0.36±0.2 mSv for RRA and 0.34±0.3 mSv for LRA, P=0.87), and at the shoulder (0.73±0.44 mSv for RRA and 0.94±0.42 mSv for LRA, P=0.27). The dose at the wrist was significantly higher for the RRA (2.44±1.12 mSv) compared with the LRA (1±0.8 mSv, P=0.002). In both radial approaches, the thoracic radiation dose under the lead apron was undetectable.
Compared with RRA, LRA for coronary procedures is associated with similar radiation dose for operators at the body, shoulder, or thyroid level, with a possible significant advantage at the wrist. The cumulative radiation dose for both approaches is well under to the annual dose-equivalent limit.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00282646.
经桡动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗可通过右桡动脉入路(RRA)或左桡动脉入路(LRA)有效实施,但关于两种入路操作人员所吸收辐射剂量的数据尚缺乏。本研究旨在评估经 RRA 和 LRA 行冠状动脉介入治疗时操作人员所吸收的辐射剂量。
在 RRA 或 LRA 行冠状动脉介入治疗期间,3 名操作人员分别在左腕、肩部、铅围裙外胸部、铅围裙下胸部和甲状腺处佩戴 5 个不同的剂量计。每月对剂量计进行分析,以确定所吸收的辐射剂量。2009 年 2 月至 12 月,390 例患者被随机分配至 RRA(185 例;年龄 66±11 岁)或 LRA(185 例;年龄 66±11 岁)组。两组间透视时间无显著差异(RRA 为 369 秒;四分位距为 134 至 857 秒;LRA 为 362 秒;四分位距为 142 至 885 秒;P=0.58)。两组每月胸部(RRA 为 0.85±0.46 mSv,LRA 为 1.12±0.78 mSv;P=0.33)、甲状腺(RRA 为 0.36±0.2 mSv,LRA 为 0.34±0.3 mSv;P=0.87)和肩部(RRA 为 0.73±0.44 mSv,LRA 为 0.94±0.42 mSv;P=0.27)的辐射剂量无显著差异。RRA 的腕部剂量(2.44±1.12 mSv)显著高于 LRA(1.0±0.8 mSv;P=0.002)。两种桡动脉入路时,铅围裙下的胸部辐射剂量无法检测到。
与 RRA 相比,LRA 行冠状动脉介入治疗时,操作人员在身体、肩部或甲状腺水平的辐射剂量相似,但腕部可能具有显著优势。两种入路的累积辐射剂量均远低于年剂量当量限值。