Giorgio A. Medranda MD, Dimitrios Bliagos MD, Brian C. Case MD
{"title":"Impact of Radiation-Attenuating Drape on Exposure in a Contemporary Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: The ATTENUATE Trial","authors":"Giorgio A. Medranda MD, Dimitrios Bliagos MD, Brian C. Case MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jscai.2026.105511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite recent improvements in radiation safety, interventionalists are increasingly exposed to radiation during cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) procedures. The RADPAD was designed as a protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield with early studies demonstrating a 20% to 62% reduction in scatter-radiation. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield in a large contemporary randomized controlled trial across multiple CCL procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, controlled ATTENUATE (rAdpad proTecTion drapE iN redUcing rAdiaTion Exposure) trial randomized CCL procedures 1:1 to use of the RADPAD vs no use of the RADPAD. The primary outcome of interest was the most proximal operator’s dose area product (DAP)-normalized operator dose (E).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1000 CCL procedures were randomized 1:1 to use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (n = 500) vs no use (n = 500). The use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield was associated with a 45.1% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized operator dose compared with no use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (0.64 vs 0.35 μSv/Gy⋅cm<sup>2</sup>; <em>P</em> < .0001). Coronary cases (n = 720) saw a 21.9% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.33 vs 0.43 μSv/Gy⋅cm<sup>2</sup>; <em>P</em> < .001), and structural cases (n = 210) saw a 54.4% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.30 vs 0.66 μSv/Gy⋅cm<sup>2</sup>; <em>P</em> = .1094).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In the largest randomized controlled trial to date evaluating the RADPAD protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield, encompassing contemporary coronary and structural CCL procedures, use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield led to a marked decrease in proximal operator radiation exposure when adjusted for the total radiation delivered during each procedure.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73990,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","volume":"5 8","pages":"Article 105511"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772930326012585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Despite recent improvements in radiation safety, interventionalists are increasingly exposed to radiation during cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) procedures. The RADPAD was designed as a protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield with early studies demonstrating a 20% to 62% reduction in scatter-radiation. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield in a large contemporary randomized controlled trial across multiple CCL procedures.
Methods
The investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, controlled ATTENUATE (rAdpad proTecTion drapE iN redUcing rAdiaTion Exposure) trial randomized CCL procedures 1:1 to use of the RADPAD vs no use of the RADPAD. The primary outcome of interest was the most proximal operator’s dose area product (DAP)-normalized operator dose (E).
Results
A total of 1000 CCL procedures were randomized 1:1 to use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (n = 500) vs no use (n = 500). The use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield was associated with a 45.1% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized operator dose compared with no use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (0.64 vs 0.35 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P < .0001). Coronary cases (n = 720) saw a 21.9% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.33 vs 0.43 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P < .001), and structural cases (n = 210) saw a 54.4% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.30 vs 0.66 μSv/Gy⋅cm2; P = .1094).
Conclusions
In the largest randomized controlled trial to date evaluating the RADPAD protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield, encompassing contemporary coronary and structural CCL procedures, use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield led to a marked decrease in proximal operator radiation exposure when adjusted for the total radiation delivered during each procedure.