A randomized controlled trial to assess operator radiation exposure from cardiac catheterization procedures using RAD BOARD® with standard pelvic shielding versus standard pelvic shielding alone.

OBJECTIVE: To study radiation exposure to the primary operator during diagnostic cardiac catheterizations using a radio-dense RAD BOARD® radial access arm board. BACKGROUND: The use of radial access for catheterization in the United States has increased from 1% in 2007 to 41% in 2018. Compared to femoral access, operator radiation exposure from radial access is similar or higher. The RAD BOARD radio-dense radial access arm board has been marketed as reducing radiation to operators by 44%. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomized 265 patients undergoing catheterization via right radial access to standard pelvic lead drape shielding (nonboard group) versus RAD BOARD in addition to pelvic drape (board group). Operator radiation exposure was measured using Landauer Microstar nanoDot™ badges worn by the operator. RESULTS: Board and nonboard groups were similar with respect to demographic and procedural variables. Mean operator dose per case was higher in the board group (.65mSieverts) than in the nonboard group (.56mSieverts, P < 0.0001). In sub-group analyses, radiation doses were higher in the board group compared to the nonboard group in patients across all body mass index groups (P < 0.03). In multivariate analysis, operator dose correlated with use of the RAD BOARD more closely than any other variable (P < 0.001). Post hoc analysis of the table setup with RAD BOARD revealed that use of RAD BOARD prevented placement of a shield normally inserted into the top of the standard below-table shield. CONCLUSION: RAD BOARD with the pelvic shield was associated with higher radiation exposure to the operator compared with pelvic shield alone, likely due to inability to use standard radiation shielding along with the RAD BOARD.

A mechanism for stroke complicating thrombus aspiration.

We propose a mechanism of how stroke may be caused by thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), and how it may be technique-dependent. Two recent meta-analyses report increased risk of stroke in patients undergoing routine thrombus aspiration during STEMI and the value of this technique has been controversial. The mechanism of stroke has not been fully explained. This case demonstrates 2 mechanisms by which aspiration might cause thrombus embolization. We recommend that if thrombus aspiration is performed during PPCI for STEMI, it should be done selectively and carefully. It is prudent to make sure the guide catheter tip is not free in the aorta when the aspiration catheter is withdrawn, to maintain suction on the aspiration catheter as it is withdrawn (particularly if the aspiration port seems to be obstructed), and to aspirate the guide catheter after the aspiration catheter is removed to capture any fragments of thrombus that remain in the guide catheter. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.