Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Don’t be Caught Half-dressed When Working with Radiation

  • Review
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A typical 2-piece personal protective equipment apron covers only half the body. However, with radiation exposure there is evidence of the following: (1) Left-sided head exposure estimates equal to 100,000 chest X-rays over a 20-year career, (2) direct linear relationship between stroke and concentration of dose, (3) increases in ischemic heart disease and myocardial infarction, (4) accelerated aging processes, and (5) increased double-stranded DNA breaks in circulating lymphocytes when lower legs are exposed. Every exposure to ionizing radiation involves a health risk that accumulates. Interventionalists are treating more patients, more complex patients, using new complicated devices. Juxtaposed with the global obesity epidemic, the result is an unprecedented level of radiation exposure for those who use radiation in their daily work. By implementing a simple system of shields, we can dramatically reduce our radiation dose. This would give us a better chance to live a longer, healthier life, and pass quality DNA to our children. This narrative review examines the efficacy of protective barriers to reduce medical occupational radiation exposure and risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP. Ottawa, Canada.

  2. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37(2–4), Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2007.

  3. Clarke and Valentin (2008). History of ICRP and the evolution of its policies. ICRP publication 109. Annals of the ICRP.

  4. BEIR VII: Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC 20001; www.nap.edu.

  5. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Guide 51, Third edition 2014-04-01: Safety aspects—guidelines for their inclusion in standards. ISO/IEC GUIDE 51:2014(E). Case postale 56, CH -1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.

  6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 158, Uncertainties in the Measurement and Dosimetry of External Radiation.

  7. Bourguignon M, Foray N, Colin C, Pauwels E. Individual radiosensitivity: a key issue in radiation protection. Int J Low Radiation. 2013;9:52–8. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLR.2013.054186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Luckey (2006). Dose-response 4(3):169–190, 2006 Copyright © 2006 University of Massachusetts ISSN: 1559-3258 https://doi.org/10.2203/dose-response.06-102.luckey.

  9. Saha GB. Radiation biology in physics and radiobiology of nuclear medicine. New York: Springer; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Lomax ME, et al. Biological consequences of radiation-induced DNA damage. Clin Oncol. 2013;25(10):578–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Meridith WJ. Fundamental physics of radiation. Bristol: John Wright & Sons Ltd; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mavragani, et al. Complex DNA damage: a route to radiation induced genomic instability and carcinogenesis. Cancers. 2017;9:91. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers9070091.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Merrifield M, Kovalchuk O. Epigenetics in radiation biology: a new research frontier. Frontgenet. 2013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mancuso M, et al. The radiation bystander effect and its potential implications for human health. Curr Mol Med. 2012. https://doi.org/10.2174/156652412800620011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brunet A, Berger Shelley L. Epigenetics of aging and aging-related disease. J Gerontol: Ser A. 2014;69(1):S17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shuryak I, Sachs Rainer K, Brenner David J. Cancer risks after radiation exposure in middle age. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(21):1628–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq346.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hernandez Laia, et al. Aging and radiation: bad companions. Aging Cell. 2015;14(2):153–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12306.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Grimm A, et al. Mitochondrial dysfunction: the missing link between aging and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Biogerontology. 2016;17(2):281–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10522-015-9618-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Guo C, et al. Oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage and neurodegenerative diseases. Neural Regen Res. 2013;8(21):2003–14.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Little MP, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of circulatory disease from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation and estimates of potential population mortality risks. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(11):1503–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Andreassi MG, et al. Subclinical carotid atherosclerosis and early vascular aging from long-term low-dose ionizing radiation exposure a genetic telomere and vascular ultrasound study in cardiac catheterization laboratory staff. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(4):616–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.12.233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lima et al (2013). An overview of equivalent doses in eye lens of occupational radiation workers in medical, industrial and nuclear areas. 2013 international nuclear atlantic conference ISBN: 978-85-99141-05-2.

  23. E Lee et al. Measurement of scatter radiation dose to the eye of interventional radiologists performing fluoroscopically guided procedures. Are you sure you are protected? Presented SIR 03/24/19.

  24. van Rooijen D, et al. Efficacy of radiation safety glasses in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0766-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Elmaraezy A, et al. Risk of cataract among interventional cardiologists and catheterization lab staff: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 2017;90:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Picano Eugenio, et al. Cancer and non-cancer brain and eye effects of chronic low-dose ionizing radiation exposure. BMC Cancer. 2012;201212:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Martin Picarda et al. (2013) Mitochondria impact brain function and cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences December 2013 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321881111.

  28. Jiang Y, Zemp R. Estimation of cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption using combined multiwavelength photoacoustic microscopy and Doppler microultrasound. J Biomed Opt. 2018;23(1):016009.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Park J, Lee J, Choi C. Mitochondrial network determines intracellular ROS dynamics and sensitivity to oxidative stress through switching intermitochondrial messengers. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(8):e23211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahmad T, et al. Computational classification of mitochondrial shapes reflects stress and redox state. Cell Death Dis. 2013;4:e461. https://doi.org/10.1038/cddis.2012.213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Coskun P, et al. A mitochondrial etiology of alzheimer and parkinson disease. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;5:553–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rajaraman P, et al. Cancer risks in us radiologic technologists working with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures 1994 2008. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(5):1101–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Roguin Ariel, et al. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(9):1368–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marazziti D. Neuropsychological testing in interventional cardiology staff after long-term exposure to ionizing radiation. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2015;21(9):670–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771500082X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Corballis MC. Left brain, right brain: facts and fantasies. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001767.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Finnerty M, Brennan PC. Protective aprons in imaging departments: manufacturer stated lead equivalence values require validation. Eur Radiol. 2005;2005(15):1477–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2571-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lichliter Andrew, et al. Clinical evaluation of protective garments with respect to garment characteristics and manufacturer label information. JVIR. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.08.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Regulation (EU) 2016/425 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on personal protective equipment and repealing Council Directive 89/686/EEC (Text with EEA relevance). European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.

  39. Schmid E, Panzer W, Schlattl H, Eder H. Emission of fluorescent X-radiation from non-lead based shielding materials of protective clothing: a radiobiological problem. J Radiol Prot. 2012;32(3):129–39. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/32/3/n129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lambert, et al. Inspection of lead aprons criteria for rejection. Health Phy. 2001;80(5):S67–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Burns KM, et al. Lead aprons are a lead exposure hazard. American College of Radiology. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.10.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bellinger D. The protean toxicities of lead: new chapters in a familiar story. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2011;8:2593–628. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8072593.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. McCaffrey JP, et al. Optimizing non-Pb radiation shielding materials using bilayers. Med Phys. 2009;36(12):5586–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Orme NM, Rihal CS, Gulati R, et al. Occupational health hazards of working in the interventional laboratory: a multisite case control study of physicians and allied staff. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:820–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. El-Sayed T. Radiation-induced DNA damage in operators performing endovascular aortic repair. Circulation. 2017;2017(136):2406–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kuon, et al. Radiation exposure benefit of a lead cap in invasive cardiology. Heart. 2003;2003(89):1205–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Eder H, et al. A new setup for testing lead free X-ray protective clothing. Phys Med Eur J Med Phys. 2017;45:6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schueler, et al. An investigation of operator exposure in interventional radiology. RadioGraphics. 2006;2006(26):1533–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Eder H, Seidenbusch MC, Treitl M, et al. A new design of a lead acrylic shield for staff dose reduction in radial and femoral access coronary catheterization. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2015;187:915–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Sukupova L, Hlavacek O, Vedlich D. Impact of the ceiling mounted radiation shielding position on the physicians dose from scatter radiation during interventional procedures. Radiol Res Pract. 2018;2018:7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4287973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. King JN, et al. Using a sterile disposable protective surgical drape for reduction of radiation exposure to interventionalists. AJR. 2002;178:153–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lucon, et al. Efficacy of an additional mobile leaded shield on operator radiation during percutaneous coronary angiography. Rad Prot Dosim. 2017;173(4):389–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncw029.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fetterly KA, Magnuson DJ, Tannahill GM, et al. Effective use of radiation shields to minimize operator dose during invasive cardiology procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2011;4:1133–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Eder H, et al. A new design of a lead-acrylic shield for staff dose reduction in radial and femoral access coronary catheterization. Technique and Medical Physics. Fortschr Rontgenstr. 2015;2015(187):915–23.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mahnken AH, et al. Efficacy of lower body shielding in computed tomography fluoroscopy guided interventions. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(6):1475–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Madder RD, VanOosterhout S, Mulder A, et al. Patient body mass index and physician radiation dose during coronary angiography: is the obesity epidemic impacting the occupational risk of physicians in the catheterization laboratory? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e006823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sex-specific differences in radiation sensitivity—epidemiological, clinical and biological studies. Statement by the German Commission on Radiological Protection. 236th meeting 17th Sept 2009. Article 2009.09.17. SSK Strahlenschutzkommission.

  58. Murphy K, et al. Should future interventional neuroradiologists be screened for mutations that impair radiation-induced DNA repair. Interv Neuroradiol. 2017;23(1):5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Miller DL, et al. Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: a joint guideline of the cardiovascular and interventional radiology society of europe and the society of interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33:230–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-009-9756-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT (2018) Expert consensus document on optimal use of ionizing radiation in cardiovascular imaging: J Am Coll Cardiol 71(24)

  61. Lloyd W, Klein MD, Bazavan M. The economic imperatives underlying the occupational health hazards of the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003742. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.003742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Albert Yu for reviewing the manuscript and providing suggestions. Grateful to Mr. Martin Lilley for sharing his insights into medical radiation physics and latest CE guidelines for PPE. Mr. Lilley is the Technical Director for Lite Tech Inc. and the USA Member of IEC subcommittee 62B/MT47 for IEC 61331:2014.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RadPro, 101 Cashew Rd. #06-03, Singapore, 679672, Singapore

    Charlie Yu

Authors
  1. Charlie Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlie Yu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Charlie Yu is the founder of RadPro, a not-for-profit company providing training, education and research on radiation protection and safety. Charlie Yu is also the founder of RadProtection Co. Ltd., a not-for-profit manufacturer of radiation protection products. Charlie Yu serves as a consultant to Worldwide Innovations and Technologies Inc., the manufacturer of RadPad.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

Consent for Publication

For this type of study consent for publication is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, C. Don’t be Caught Half-dressed When Working with Radiation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 43, 369–375 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02391-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02391-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation