ArticleOpen heart2020
Catheter strategy to ease the procedure and reduce radiation exposure when requiring neck access.
Article in Open heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Exposure during Cardiac Interventions in Congenital Heart Defects: A Multicenter German Registry Analysis 2012-2020.The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon · 2025Article
- Expanding the Reach of Pediatric Transcatheter Pacing.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the potential occupational radiation reduction and technical feasibility in patients rotated 180° (upside-down) when requiring neck access for transcervical or trans-subclavian catheterisation.
methodsUpside-down positioning is defined as rotating patients in supine position by 180°, so that the feet come to rest where the head would otherwise be. We retrospectively evaluated all these procedures performed between March 2016 and May 2019. Furthermore, two different phantoms (paediatric and adult) were used prospectively to quantify the occupational dose between conventional or upside-down positioning. In this context, ambient dose equivalents were measured using real-time dosimeters. Three different projection angles were applied.
results44 patients with median age and body weight of 1.0 year (range 0-56) and 9.5 kg (range 1.3-74.3) underwent 63 procedures positioned upside-down. This position proved advantageous for practical reasons, since the length of the examination table could be optimally used. Additionally, it resulted in a significantly lower overall ambient dose equivalent for the primary operator (PO) of 94.8% (mean: 2569±807 vs 135±23 nSv; p<0.01) in the adult, and of 65.5% (mean: 351±104 vs 121±56 nSv; p<0.01) in the paediatric phantom, respectively.
conclusionUpside-down positioning facilitates handling in a straightforward manner when access from the neck is required. Moreover, it significantly reduces local radiation exposure for the PO in the paediatric and, most impressively, in the adult phantom.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.