scholarly journals Understanding and Minimising Occupational Radiation in the Catheterisation Laboratory with PISAX and the ACIST CVi® Contrast Delivery System

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Olivier Bar ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Delivery System ◽  
Cardiac Catheterisation ◽  
Injection System ◽  
Radiation Shield ◽  
Contrast Injection ◽  
Occupational Radiation ◽  
Catheterisation Laboratory

This paper provides an overview of radiation exposure and its associated risks in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (cath lab), as well as strategies to minimise radiation exposure for operators, cath lab staff and patients. The benefits of using a mobile 2 mm lead equivalent radiation shield (PISAX) and adoption of an automated contrast injection system (the ACIST CVi® Contrast Delivery System) are discussed, and the potential advantages of their combination are reviewed.

Reduction of occupational radiation dose in staff at the cardiac catheterisation laboratory by protective material placed on the patient

2015 ◽  
Vol 165 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 272-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Ordiales ◽  
J. M. Nogales ◽  
R. Sánchez-Casanueva ◽  
E. Vano ◽  
J. M. Fernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Cardiac Catheterisation ◽  
Protective Material ◽  
Occupational Radiation ◽  
Catheterisation Laboratory

scholarly journals Use of a safe procedure checklist in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e000074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair C Lindsay ◽  
Jeremy Bishop ◽  
Katie Harron ◽  
Simon Davies ◽  
Elizabeth Haxby
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Cardiac Catheterisation ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Dose Area Product ◽  
Patient Questionnaires ◽  
Team Briefing ◽  
Area Product ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Catheterisation Laboratory

BackgroundThe use of the WHO safe surgery checklist has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality from surgical procedures. However, whether a WHO-style safe procedure checklist can improve safety in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) has not previously been investigated.ObjectivesThe authors sought to design and implement a safe procedure checklist suitable for all CCL procedures, and to assess its impact over the course of 1 year.MethodsIn the first 3 months, weekly PDSA cycles (Plan-Do-Study-Act) were used to optimise the design of the checklist through testing and staff feedback, and team briefing sessions were introduced before each procedure list. The impact of the checklist and team briefs was assessed by analysing in-house procedural data subsequently submitted to national audit databases. Staff and patient questionnaires were performed throughout the year.ResultsIntroduction of the checklist was associated with a significant reduction of 3 min in average turnaround time (95% CI 25 s to 6 min, p=0.027). Similarly, an initial reduction in patient radiation exposure was recorded (dose area product reduction of 641.5 cGy/cm2; 95% CI 255.9 to 1027.1, p=0.002). The rate of reported complications from all procedures fell significantly from 2.0% in 2012/2013 (95% CI 1.6% to 2.4%) to 0.8% in 2013/2014 (95% CI 0.6% to 1.1%, p≤0.001). Staff climate questionnaires showed that technicians and radiographers gave more positive responses at the end of the study period compared with the beginning (p=0.001).ConclusionsThe use of a team brief and WHO-derived safe procedure checklist in the CCL was associated with decreased radiation exposure, fewer procedural complications, faster turnarounds and improved staff experience.

EVALUATION OF OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE IN A RADIO-DIAGNOSTIC FACILITY IN KATSINA- NIGERIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 722-729
Author(s):  
Usman Sani ◽  
Bashir Gide Muhammad ◽  
Dimas Skam Joseph ◽  
D. Z. Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Short Exposure ◽  
Skin Dose ◽  
Continuous Training ◽  
Short Exposure Time ◽  
Occupational Dose ◽  
Dose Limits ◽  
Radiation Workers ◽  
Occupational Radiation

Poor implementation of quality assurance programs in the radiation industry has been a major setback in our locality. Several studies revealed that occupational workers are exposed to many potential hazards of ionizing radiation during radio-diagnostic procedures, yet radiation workers are often not monitored. This study aims to evaluate the occupational exposure of the radiation workers in Federal Medical Centre Katsina, and to compare the exposure with recommended occupational radiation dose limits. The quarterly readings of 20 thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLDs') used by the radiation workers from January to December, 2019 were collected from the facility's radiation monitoring archive, and subsequently assessed and analyzed. The results indicate that the average annual equivalent dose per occupational worker range from 0.74 to 1.20 mSv and 1.28 to 2.21 mSv for skin surface and deep skin dose, measured at 10 mm and 0.07 mm tissue depth respectively. The occupational dose was within the recommended national and international limits of 5 mSv per annum or an average of 20 mSv in 5 years. Therefore, there was no significant radiation exposure to all the occupational workers in the study area. Though, the occupational radiation dose is within recommended limit, this does not eliminate stochastic effect of radiation. The study recommended that the occupational workers should adhere and strictly comply with the principles of radiation protection which includes distance, short exposure time, shielding and proper monitoring of dose limits. Furthermore, continuous training of the radiation workers is advised.

scholarly journals Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational radiation exposure assessed using local data

2009 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 437-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. K. Karipidis ◽  
G. Benke ◽  
M. R. Sim ◽  
L. Fritschi ◽  
C. Vajdic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Local Data ◽  
Occupational Radiation Exposure ◽  
Non Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Occupational Radiation

scholarly journals Occupational Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P. Patel ◽  
D. Gallacher ◽  
R. Dourado ◽  
O. Lyons ◽  
A. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Occupational Radiation Exposure ◽  
Occupational Radiation

scholarly journals Comparative occupational radiation exposure between fixed and mobile imaging systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 190-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel E. Kendrick ◽  
Claire P. Miller ◽  
Pamela A. Moorehead ◽  
Ann H. Kim ◽  
Henry R. Baele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Imaging Systems ◽  
Occupational Radiation Exposure ◽  
Mobile Imaging ◽  
Occupational Radiation

Impact of considering non-occupational radiation exposure on the association between occupational dose and solid cancer among French nuclear workers

2017 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucie Fournier ◽  
Enora Cléro ◽  
Eric Samson ◽  
Sylvaine Caër-Lorho ◽  
Dominique Laurier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Exposure ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Environmental Radiation ◽  
Occupational Radiation Exposure ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Work Related ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Occupational Radiation

ObjectivesThe French nuclear worker cohort allows for the assessment of cancer risk associated with occupational radiation exposure, but workers are also exposed to medical and environmental radiation which can be of the same order of magnitude. This study aims to examine the impact of non-occupational radiation exposures on the dose-risk analysis between occupational radiation exposure and cancer mortality.MethodsThe cohort included workers employed before 1995 for at least one year by CEA, AREVA NC or EDF and badge-monitored for external radiation exposure. Monitoring results were used to calculate occupational individual doses. Scenarios of work-related X-ray and environmental exposures were simulated. Poisson regression was used to quantify associations between occupational exposure and cancer mortality adjusting for non-occupational radiation exposure.ResultsThe mean cumulative dose of external occupational radiation was 18.4 mSv among 59 004 workers. Depending on the hypotheses made, the mean cumulative work-related X-ray dose varied between 3.1 and 9.2 mSv and the mean cumulative environmental dose was around 130 mSv. The unadjusted excess relative rate of cancer per Sievert (ERR/Sv) was 0.34 (90% CI −0.44 to 1.24). Adjusting for environmental radiation exposure did not substantially modify this risk coefficient, but it was attenuated by medical exposure (ERR/Sv point estimate between 0.15 and 0.23).ConclusionsOccupational radiation risk estimates were lower when adjusted for work-related X-ray exposures. Environmental exposures had a very slight impact on the occupational exposure risk estimates. In any scenario of non-occupational exposure considered, a positive but insignificant excess cancer risk associated with occupational exposure was observed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document