Search

Aims: The aim of this study was to test the radioprotection efficacy and comfort of newer bilayer barium sulphate-bismuth oxide composite (XPF) caps in an interventional cardiology setting., Methods and Results: Operators were randomly assigned to wear standard fabric (n=59), 0.3 mm (n=74), or 0.5 mm (n=64) lead-equivalent XPF caps. Radiation doses were measured by using dosimeters placed outside and underneath the caps. Wearing comfort was assessed at the end of each measurement on a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-100, with 100 indicating optimal comfort). Procedural data did not differ between the XPF and standard groups. Mean standard, XPF 0.3 mm, and XPF 0.5 mm cap weights were 12.5 g, 118.4 g, and 123.7 g, respectively. VAS comfort ratings of the standard and XPF caps did not differ significantly (p=0.272). The mean radiation protection was 12.0%, 95% CI: 4.9-19.1% (standard caps, n=35), 91.5%, 95% CI: 87.4-95.6% (XPF 0.3 mm caps, n=45) and 97.1%, 95% CI: 92.5-100% (XPF 0.5 mm caps, n=44) (p≤0.001 for all group comparisons). Using the XPF caps, a cumulative total radiation dose reduction by almost factor 10 was evident (272 procedures, 22,310 μSv outside the XPF caps, 2,770 μSv inside the caps)., Conclusions: Lightweight XPF caps show comparable comfort to standard fabric caps, but provide substantial radiation protection during fluoroscopy-guided cardiac interventions.

Background: Radial access is increasingly used for both diagnostic and interventional cardiac procedures. Prospective data comparing ultrasound- versus palpation-guided radial catheterization are largely lacking., Methods: In this prospective, single-center study, a total of 183 consecutive patients scheduled for transradial cardiac catheterization by an experienced interventionalist were assigned 1:1 to either palpation- or ultrasound-guided radial access. Demographic and procedure parameters were prospectively recorded., Results: Baseline demographic and clinical parameters did not differ significantly between the ultrasound group (n = 92) and palpation group (n = 91). The initial radial catheterization success rate (87% vs 86.8%; P=.999) and time to access (47 seconds [interquartile range (IQR), 20-90 seconds] versus 31 seconds [IQR, 20-75 seconds]; P=.179) did not differ between the ultrasound and palpation groups, respectively. Pulse quality (absent, weak, strong) was independently associated with access failure in both groups (P<.001). Obesity was associated with access failure in the palpation group (P=.005), but not in the ultrasound group (P=.544). In 3/12 cases (25%) in the ultrasound group and 2/6 cases (33%) in the palpation group, the operator was able to establish radial access using the alternative method (P=.710). If palpation-guided radial access failed, an additional ultrasound-guided attempt before crossover to femoral access was associated with a shorter overall time to access (525 seconds [IQR, 462-567 seconds] versus 744 seconds [IQR, 722-788 seconds]; P=.016)., Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided radial access seems to provide no substantial additional benefit over palpation-guided access alone. Attempting the alternative guiding methods to establish radial access before crossover to femoral access seems to be a reasonable approach.