Ahmed Saad Elsaeidy, Mohamed Abuelazm, Yehya Khlidj, Ahmed Mazen Amin, Ahmed Almahdy Mohamed, Obieda Altobaishat, Ahmed Abdelhalem, Muhammad Imran, Yazan AlMohtasib, Basel Abdelazeem
{"title":"Efficacy of novel radiation protective systems during cardiac interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Ahmed Saad Elsaeidy, Mohamed Abuelazm, Yehya Khlidj, Ahmed Mazen Amin, Ahmed Almahdy Mohamed, Obieda Altobaishat, Ahmed Abdelhalem, Muhammad Imran, Yazan AlMohtasib, Basel Abdelazeem","doi":"10.1007/s00411-025-01133-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The cumulative exposure to X-ray radiation during cardiac intervention can indeed pose various health risks. The present meta-analysis aims to compare novel radiation protective systems (drapes and X-ray shields) versus conventional safety measures on the operator's procedural radiation exposure during cardiac interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed including randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and WOS until February 2024. The random-effects model was used to report continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sixteen Trials with 3,370 patients were included. Novel radiation protective systems were significantly associated with low total operator radiation dose (MD: -7.3, 95%CI [-11.9, -2.7], p < 0.01) with no significant difference between both arms regarding chest radiation dose (MD: -20.7, 95%CI [-48.9, 7.6], p = 0.15) and thyroid radiation dose (MD: -15.4, 95%CI [-32.4, 1.7], p = 0.08). Also, the novel systems were significantly associated with low air kerma (MD: -46.4, 95%CI [-87.3, 5.5], p = 0.03) and low fluoroscopy duration (MD: -0.3, 95%CI [-0.6, -0.04], p = 0.02). However, there was no difference between both arms regarding the total procedure time (MD: -0.7, 95%CI [-3.1, 1.6], p = 0.54), contrast volume (MD: -3.2, 95%CI [-10.2, 3.7], p = 0.36), and dose area product (MD: 628.4, 95% CI [-3,466.9, 4,723.8], p = 0.76). Also, no differences were found between the drape and shields subgroups in most outcomes. The present literature review showed a low to very low certainty level that novel radiation protective systems significantly reduced the total radiation dose exposure of operators and air kerma. They were also associated with lower fluoroscopy duration, insignificantly lower procedure time, and contrast volume. Given the limited available data it is concluded that novel radiation protective systems are promising, but further large-scale, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of the newly developed RPSs in lowering radiation exposure of staff in the medical setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":21002,"journal":{"name":"Radiation and Environmental Biophysics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation and Environmental Biophysics","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-025-01133-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The cumulative exposure to X-ray radiation during cardiac intervention can indeed pose various health risks. The present meta-analysis aims to compare novel radiation protective systems (drapes and X-ray shields) versus conventional safety measures on the operator's procedural radiation exposure during cardiac interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed including randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and WOS until February 2024. The random-effects model was used to report continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sixteen Trials with 3,370 patients were included. Novel radiation protective systems were significantly associated with low total operator radiation dose (MD: -7.3, 95%CI [-11.9, -2.7], p < 0.01) with no significant difference between both arms regarding chest radiation dose (MD: -20.7, 95%CI [-48.9, 7.6], p = 0.15) and thyroid radiation dose (MD: -15.4, 95%CI [-32.4, 1.7], p = 0.08). Also, the novel systems were significantly associated with low air kerma (MD: -46.4, 95%CI [-87.3, 5.5], p = 0.03) and low fluoroscopy duration (MD: -0.3, 95%CI [-0.6, -0.04], p = 0.02). However, there was no difference between both arms regarding the total procedure time (MD: -0.7, 95%CI [-3.1, 1.6], p = 0.54), contrast volume (MD: -3.2, 95%CI [-10.2, 3.7], p = 0.36), and dose area product (MD: 628.4, 95% CI [-3,466.9, 4,723.8], p = 0.76). Also, no differences were found between the drape and shields subgroups in most outcomes. The present literature review showed a low to very low certainty level that novel radiation protective systems significantly reduced the total radiation dose exposure of operators and air kerma. They were also associated with lower fluoroscopy duration, insignificantly lower procedure time, and contrast volume. Given the limited available data it is concluded that novel radiation protective systems are promising, but further large-scale, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of the newly developed RPSs in lowering radiation exposure of staff in the medical setting.
期刊介绍:
This journal is devoted to fundamental and applied issues in radiation research and biophysics. The topics may include:
Biophysics of ionizing radiation: radiation physics and chemistry, radiation dosimetry, radiobiology, radioecology, biophysical foundations of medical applications of radiation, and radiation protection.
Biological effects of radiation: experimental or theoretical work on molecular or cellular effects; relevance of biological effects for risk assessment; biological effects of medical applications of radiation; relevance of radiation for biosphere and in space; modelling of ecosystems; modelling of transport processes of substances in biotic systems.
Risk assessment: epidemiological studies of cancer and non-cancer effects; quantification of risk including exposures to radiation and confounding factors
Contributions to these topics may include theoretical-mathematical and experimental material, as well as description of new techniques relevant for the study of these issues. They can range from complex radiobiological phenomena to issues in health physics and environmental protection.