Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2006 Jan;67(1):12-6.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.20451.

Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach

Helmut W Lange et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006 Jan.

Abstract

Controversial data have been published on the amount of radiation exposure during radial coronary procedures. We hypothesized that in the current era, high-volume operators with optimal technique would not be exposed to higher radiation doses during radial procedures. A total of 297 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization (195 elective diagnostic coronary angiograms and 102 elective coronary interventions) were prospectively assigned in a random fashion to the radial access (RA) or femoral access (FA). All procedures were performed by the same operator with vast experience in radial procedures and standard measures for radiation protection were used. Operator radiation exposure was measured with an electronic radiation dosimeter attached to the breast pocket of the operator on the outside of the lead apron and estimates of the ambient dose equivalent were derived. For coronary angiograms, fluoroscopy time (2.8 +/- 2.1 vs. 1.7 +/- 1.4 min; P < 0.001) and dose-area product (15.1 +/- 8.4 vs. 13.1 +/- 8.5 Gy x cm(2); P < 0.05) were increased by 18% and 15%, respectively, for RA vs. FA. Operator radiation exposure was 100% higher for the RA compared to the FA (64 +/- 55 vs. 32 +/- 39 microSv; P < 0.001). For coronary interventions, fluoroscopy time (11.4 +/- 8.4 vs. 10.4 +/- 6.8 min; P = NS) and dose-area product (46.3 +/- 28.7 vs. 51.0 +/- 29.4 Gy x cm(2); P = NS) for RA and FA were not statistically different. However, operator radiation exposure was increased by 51% for the RA compared to the FA (166 +/- 188 vs. 110 +/- 115 microSv; P < 0.05). This study demonstrates that the radial approach is burdened with a 100% increase in operator radiation exposure during diagnostic coronary catheterization procedures and a 50% increase during coronary interventions, provided that no special devices for radiation protection are used. Measurements of radiation dose, such as fluoroscopy time and dose-area product, substantially underestimate the disproportionate rise in radiation exposure. Special precautions are warranted to improve radiation protection during invasive coronary procedures via the radial approach.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources