Impact of Ceiling Suspended Shield Size on Primary Operator Radiation Dose During Coronary Angiography and Intervention

IF 2.1 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-09 DOI:10.1002/jmrs.70042

James A. Crowhurst, Elizabeth Andersen, Michael Savage, Jason Tse, Dale Murdoch, Darren Walters, Rustem Dautov

{"title":"Impact of Ceiling Suspended Shield Size on Primary Operator Radiation Dose During Coronary Angiography and Intervention","authors":"James A. Crowhurst, Elizabeth Andersen, Michael Savage, Jason Tse, Dale Murdoch, Darren Walters, Rustem Dautov","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.70042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Radiation protection for operators performing coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important, with the occupational risks being increasingly recognised. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield is the most commonly used piece of radiation shielding equipment, with different models available. This study sought to measure the impact of shield size on operator dose (OD) in the clinical environment, with two readily available models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Two identical cardiac catheterisation laboratories (cath labs) were used in this single centre study. Fluoroscopy time (FT) and kerma area product (KAP) measured procedural radiation exposure. Identical lower body shields were used in both rooms. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield was different in each room, with one being 35% larger and also having lead rubber pleats along the lower edge. OD was measured with a real-time dosimeter (Raysafe i3) at the end of each procedure.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>FT and KAP were not significantly different between the two cath labs for 1021 CA and 441 PCI procedures respectively. OD for CA procedures was 9 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 12 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). For PCI procedures, the operator dose was 21 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 29 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In this study, with identical cath labs, and similar procedural dose and fluoroscopy times, OD was up to 43% lower with a larger lead acrylic shield when compared to a standard lead acrylic shield.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"73 2","pages":"150-155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.70042","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmrs.70042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Radiation protection for operators performing coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important, with the occupational risks being increasingly recognised. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield is the most commonly used piece of radiation shielding equipment, with different models available. This study sought to measure the impact of shield size on operator dose (OD) in the clinical environment, with two readily available models.

Methods

Two identical cardiac catheterisation laboratories (cath labs) were used in this single centre study. Fluoroscopy time (FT) and kerma area product (KAP) measured procedural radiation exposure. Identical lower body shields were used in both rooms. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield was different in each room, with one being 35% larger and also having lead rubber pleats along the lower edge. OD was measured with a real-time dosimeter (Raysafe i3) at the end of each procedure.

Results

FT and KAP were not significantly different between the two cath labs for 1021 CA and 441 PCI procedures respectively. OD for CA procedures was 9 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 12 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (p < 0.001). For PCI procedures, the operator dose was 21 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 29 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In this study, with identical cath labs, and similar procedural dose and fluoroscopy times, OD was up to 43% lower with a larger lead acrylic shield when compared to a standard lead acrylic shield.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

冠状动脉造影术和介入治疗中，天花板悬挂屏蔽尺寸对主要操作者辐射剂量的影响。

导读：随着越来越多的人认识到职业风险，对进行冠状动脉造影（CA）和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）的操作人员的辐射防护很重要。吊顶式铅亚克力屏蔽是最常用的辐射屏蔽设备，有不同的型号可供选择。本研究试图用两种现成的模型来测量屏蔽尺寸对临床环境中操作人员剂量（OD）的影响。方法：采用两个相同的心导管实验室（cath labs）进行单中心研究。透视时间（FT）和克尔玛面积积（KAP）测量程序辐射暴露。两个房间都使用了相同的下半身护盾。天花板悬挂的铅丙烯酸屏蔽在每个房间都是不同的，其中一个要大35%，并且在下缘也有铅橡胶褶皱。在每个程序结束时，使用实时剂量计（Raysafe i3）测量OD。结果：1021例CA和441例PCI两种导管室间FT和KAP差异无统计学意义。结论：在相同的导管室、相同的操作剂量和相同的透视次数下，较大的丙烯酸铅屏蔽层比标准的丙烯酸铅屏蔽层的OD值降低了43%。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

4.80%

发文量

审稿时长

8 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences (JMRS) is an international and multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal that accepts manuscripts related to medical imaging / diagnostic radiography, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, medical ultrasound / sonography, and the complementary disciplines of medical physics, radiology, radiation oncology, nursing, psychology and sociology. Manuscripts may take the form of: original articles, review articles, commentary articles, technical evaluations, case series and case studies. JMRS promotes excellence in international medical radiation science by the publication of contemporary and advanced research that encourages the adoption of the best clinical, scientific and educational practices in international communities. JMRS is the official professional journal of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) and the New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology (NZIMRT).