English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background—Several methods to reduce radiation exposure in the setting of coronary procedures are available on the market, and we previously showed that additional radiation shields reduce operator exposure during radial interventions. We set out to examine the efficacy of real-time personal dosimetry monitoring in a real-world setting of radial artery catheterization. Methods and Results—In an all-comer prospective, parallel study, consecutive coronary diagnostic and intervention procedures were performed with the use of standard radiation shield alone (control group) or with the addition of a real-time dosimetry monitoring system (Raysafe, Billdal, Sweden, monitoring group). The primary outcome was the difference in exposure of the primary operator among groups. Additional endpoints included patient, nurse, second operator exposure and fluoroscopy time. A total of 700 procedures were included in the analysis ( n  = 369 in the monitoring group). There were no differences among groups in patients’ body mass index ( p  = 0.232), type of procedure (intervention vs. diagnostic,  p  = 0.172), and patient sex ( p  = 0.784). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in the monitoring group (5.6 (5.1–6.2) min vs. 7.0 (6.1–7.7) min,  p  = 0.023). Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the monitoring group for the patient (135 (115–151) µSv vs. 208 (176–245) µSv,  p  < 0.0001) but not for the first operator (9 (7–11) µSv vs. 10 (8–11),  p  = 0.70) and the assistant (2 (1–2) µSv vs. 2 (1–2) µSv,  p  = 0.121). Conclusions—In clinical daily practice, the use of a real-time dosimetry monitoring device reduces patient radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time without an effect on operator radiation exposure.

Effectiveness of a Real-Time X-ray Dosimetry Monitor in Reducing Radiation Exposure in Coronary Procedures: The ESPRESSO-Raysafe Randomized Trial