Key result
Interventional cardiology is linked to a ~134% higher incidence of body pain versus non-interventional practice.
Why the study?
Interventional cardiology procedures have increased rapidly, but the occupational health hazards linked to prolonged wearing of lead personal protective equipment and health protection needs required assessment.
Does performing interventional cardiology procedures and wearing lead PPE increase the risk of occupational health hazards compared to non-interventional cardiology practice?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,044)
Yes
Does performing interventional cardiology procedures and wearing lead PPE increase the risk of occupational health hazards compared to non-interventional cardiology practice?
Absolute Event Rate: 56.6% vs 24.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
Interventional cardiologists face a significantly higher burden of occupational health hazards, particularly body pain, compared to non-interventional cardiologists, highlighting the need for improved protective equipment and technologies.
May indicate higher occupational pain risk for interventional cardiologists; leaves open causal role of lead PPE pending prospective data.
Introduction: Interventional cardiology procedures (ICPs) have become the mainstay treatments in cardiology diseases and increased rapidly. This study aims to assess the occupational health hazards (OHHs) related to the long-time wearing of lead personal protective equipment and reveal health protection needs in interventional cardiologists. Methods and Results: We invited interventional and non-interventional cardiologists in tertiary III hospitals in China to participate in an online cross-sectional survey on their health status, utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE), and personal health protection (PHP) needs. Propensity score methods were used for comparisons of OHHs between the matched interventional and non-interventional cardiologists. Totally, 642 interventional and 402 non-interventional cardiologists completed the survey. The interventional cardiologists had significantly higher incidence of body pain (56.6% vs. 24.2%, p<0.001), bone and joint disease (21.7% vs. 8.6%, p=0.001), cataract (3.5% vs. 0%, p=0.039), and anxiety (8.1% vs. 2.5%, p=0.029) than the matched non-interventional cardiologists. The risk of back pain was independently associated with female gender, performing percutaneous coronary intervention procedure or ≥2 types of ICP, and the personal annual volume of ICPs. Only 3.3% of interventional cardiologists were satisfied with PPE and 83.0% of them complained of physical toll caused by heavy PPE. 90.7% were willing to conduct ICP without radiation exposure. Conclusions: Body pain was the main OHH in interventional cardiologists likely due to wearing heavy lead PPE for long working hours. Besides training more interventional cardiologists, the adoption of emerging technologies without heavy lead PPE will be a promising way to reduce the OHH burden.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Occupational health hazards (n=1,044). Interventional cardiology practice (wearing heavy lead PPE) vs. Non-interventional cardiology practice was evaluated on Incidence of body pain (p=<0.001). Interventional cardiologists experienced a significantly higher incidence of body pain compared to non-interventional cardiologists (56.6% vs. 24.2%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: