June 2025 Supplement – The Radiation Safety Revolution
The Next Generation of Interventional Team Protection
May/June 2025 Supplement – The Radiation Safety Revolution
The Next Generation of Interventional Team Protection
Real-World Reductions in Lead-Free Radiation Exposure with the Rampart System during Endovascular Procedures
- Study Design: Prospective, multicenter study of 1,712 endovascular procedures by 671 operators at 153 sites using the Rampart M1128 lead-free shielding system.
- Key Data: System combined interlocking bismuth acrylic panels (1.0 mm lead equivalent) with soft shielding (0.5 mm lead equivalent).
- Key Data: Live dosimeters at the operator shoulder showed median exposure of 2 μSv (.2 mRem) for main operators and 1 μSv (.1 mRem) for assistants.
- Claim: Results show Rampart enables safe, lead-free procedures with effective radiation protection.
Orthopedic Risks to Cardiac Catheterization Operators Wearing Traditional Lead Protection Versus Using Novel Lead-Less Solutions: Insights from the Prospective ERGO-CATH Study
- Study Design: Single-center prospective study using IMUs to quantify ergonomic strain on cath lab operators’ cervical, thoracic, torso-pelvic, and lumbar regions.
- Key Data: Operators spent up to 36% of case time in high-risk cervical rotation, 16% in cervical flexion, and 6% in thoracic flexion, with higher discomfort wearing lead vs lead-less (23% vs 12%).
- Claim: Rampart reduced operator discomfort in women to under 10%, compared to 50% reporting discomfort when wearing lead aprons.
Radiation Exposure During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures: Portable Shielding System Versus Standard Lead Aprons
- Study Design: Prospective, single-center study of 100 elective cardiac procedures comparing standard lead apron protection vs. Rampart Defender portable shielding.
- Key Data: Neck-level radiation dose to operators averaged 0.5 µSv with Rampart vs. 12.9 µSv with lead (p < 0.0001)
- Key Data: Rampart group had significantly lower neck-level radiation vs. non-Rampart: operator 0.5 vs 1.5 µSv, assistant 1.5 vs 3.6 µSv, radiographer 0.6 vs 1.3 µSv (p ≤ 0.002).
- Claim: Rampart Defender reduced neck-level radiation exposure across the cath lab team without impeding workflow, potentially lowering long-term health risks from scatter radiation.
Comparison of Effective Radiation Shielding Between a Portable, Configurable, Floor-Supported Radiation System vs Conventional Apron and Shields in Clinical Interventional Procedures: Quality of Life Sub-Study
- Study Design: Two-part study evaluating Rampart Defender vs. traditional lead aprons for both quality of life and radiation exposure in the cath lab.
- Key Data: Daily and weekly surveys showed lead aprons increased odds of pain by up to 19.8× and fatigue by 25.9× vs. Rampart.
- Key Data: Radiation monitoring in 63 procedures found significantly lower exposure at the temple and arm/shoulder with Rampart (alone or combined with lead) compared to lead alone.
- Claim: Results suggest Rampart improves comfort, reduces orthopedic strain, and provides effective radiation protection without compromising safety.
Rampart Radiation Scatter Report
- Study Design: Lab-based study measuring scatter radiation during simulated cardiac procedures with and without Rampart Defender and Bunker systems.
- Key Data: Rampart Defender with full configuration reduced scatter radiation by up to 99% compared to no shielding.
- Key Data: Across all measurement points, Rampart devices consistently outperformed baseline and partial shielding setups, with >90% reduction in most scenarios.
- Claim: Rampart shielding systems provide substantial scatter radiation protection for operators, significantly exceeding the reduction achieved by standard shielding methods.
Systematic Comparison of the Efficacy of Various Radiation Protection Devices in Reducing Operator Scatter Radiation Dose in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory
- Study Design: Comparing four shielding setups, including Rampart IC, for scatter dose reduction in the cath lab.
- Key Data: Rampart IC with table skirt achieved the greatest dose reduction—averaging 95% less radiation vs. no shielding.
- Key Data: Outperformed other tested devices (STARTable, EggNest, usual shielding) across multiple projection angles.
- Claim: Provides high-level radiation protection without the burden of heavy lead aprons.
Radiation Exposure Using Rampart vs Standard Lead Aprons and Shields During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures
- Study Design: Randomized trial of 100 elective invasive cardiovascular procedures comparing Rampart Defender with traditional lead aprons and shields (LAS).
- Key Data: Significantly reduced total body radiation exposure for all team members at every measured position.
- Key Data: Head and neck radiation exposure also significantly lower with Rampart.
- Claim: Enabled lead-free procedures without increasing fluoroscopy time or compromising procedural performance.
Trial of a Novel Radiation Shielding Device to Protect Staff in the Cardiac Catheter Laboratory
- Study Design: Randomized trial of 100 cardiac angiography/intervention cases comparing Rampart Defender to traditional shielding.
- Key Data: Operator radiation exposure reduced by up to 100% across multiple body locations.
- Key Data: Scrub nurse doses also significantly reduced, with some measurements at 0 µSv (0 mRem).
- Claim: No compromise in procedural access or workflow.