新型辐射防护系统在心脏干预中的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 BIOLOGY
Ahmed Saad Elsaeidy, Mohamed Abuelazm, Yehya Khlidj, Ahmed Mazen Amin, Ahmed Almahdy Mohamed, Obieda Altobaishat, Ahmed Abdelhalem, Muhammad Imran, Yazan AlMohtasib, Basel Abdelazeem
{"title":"新型辐射防护系统在心脏干预中的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

在心脏介入治疗期间,x射线辐射的累积暴露确实会造成各种健康风险。本荟萃分析旨在比较新型辐射防护系统(窗帘和x射线屏蔽)与传统安全措施在心脏介入手术过程中操作者的程序性辐射暴露。系统回顾和荟萃分析包括PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus和WOS的随机对照试验,直到2024年2月。随机效应模型采用95%置信区间(CI)的均值差(MD)报告连续结果。纳入了16项试验,共3370例患者。新型辐射防护系统与低操作人员总辐射剂量显著相关(MD: -7.3, 95%CI [-11.9, -2.7], p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of novel radiation protective systems during cardiac interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
>36 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信