Background Despite recent improvements in radiation safety, interventionalists are increasingly exposed to radiation during cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) procedures. The RADPAD was designed as a protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield with early studies demonstrating a 20% to 62% reduction in scatter-radiation. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield in a large contemporary randomized controlled trial across multiple CCL procedures. Methods The investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, controlled ATTENUATE (rAdpad proTecTion drapE iN redUcing rAdiaTion Exposure) trial randomized CCL procedures 1:1 to use of the RADPAD vs no use of the RADPAD. The primary outcome of interest was the most proximal operator's dose area product (DAP)-normalized operator dose (E). Results A total of 1000 CCL procedures were randomized 1:1 to use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (n = 500) vs no use (n = 500). The use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield was associated with a 45.1% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized operator dose compared with no use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield (0.64 vs 0.35 μSv/Gy⋅cm 2 ; P < .0001). Coronary cases (n = 720) saw a 21.9% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.33 vs 0.43 μSv/Gy⋅cm 2 ; P < .001), and structural cases (n = 210) saw a 54.4% relative reduction in the DAP-normalized E using the RADPAD (0.30 vs 0.66 μSv/Gy⋅cm 2 ; P = .1094). Conclusions In the largest randomized controlled trial to date evaluating the RADPAD protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield, encompassing contemporary coronary and structural CCL procedures, use of the protective scatter-radiation absorbing shield led to a marked decrease in proximal operator radiation exposure when adjusted for the total radiation delivered during each procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Medranda et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: