http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3549-3007
Figures
Abstract
Objective
Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has become a standard therapy for patients with aortic valve stenosis. Fluoroscopic imaging is essential for TAVI with the anesthesiologist’s workplace close to patient’s head side. While the use of lead-caps has been shown to be useful for interventional cardiologists, data are lacking for anesthesiologists.
Methods
A protective cap with a 0.35 lead-equivalent was worn on 15 working days by one anesthesiologist. Six detectors (three outside, three inside) were analyzed to determine the reduction of radiation. Literature search was conducted between April and October 2018.
Citation: Mayr NP, Wiesner G, Kretschmer A, Brönner J, Hoedlmoser H, Husser O, et al. (2019) Assessing the level of radiation experienced by anesthesiologists during transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and protection by a lead cap. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210872
Editor: Wisit Cheungpasitporn, University of Mississippi Medical Center, UNITED STATES
Received: August 2, 2018; Accepted: November 16, 2018; Published: January 30, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Mayr et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data are available from the mediaTUM Institutional Data Access (http://doi.org/10.14459/2018mp1447322).
Funding: This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Technical University of Munich within the funding programme Open Access Publishing.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
To date about 350.000 transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantations (TAVI) have been performed [1] with more than 13.000 in Germany in 2015 alone [2]. As periprocedural fluoroscopic imaging is essential, this procedure is done in cardiologic catheterization laboratories (CathLabs) [3] or specially designed Hybrid-ORs. As several steps of the procedure, may be painful to the patient or haemodynamically impairing, anesthesia managed care is mandatory for these patients. Thereby, the anesthesiologist’s workplace is close to the patient’s head side. Periprocedural pain and unrest, or cases of emergency may demand a close contact of the anesthesiologist to the patient. Furthermore, the X-ray protection, attached to the CathLab-table, is often deficient at the head-side and a head-sided position of the C-arm may further impede stationary X-ray protection. In recent years, radiation protection has become an important topic for the interventional cardiologists [4] and reports of an increased incidence of left sided brain tumors have been published [5, 6]. It has been shown that the use of lead caps and glasses could reduce the radiation exposure of the brain in this group [7–9]. Further data suggest that the occupational radiation exposure of the medical staff during TAVI is highly dependent on the access site used (e.g. transapical vs. transfemoral), protection shields, angulation of the C-arm and beam projection [10–13]. Such data is lacking for the anesthesiologist positioned at the head-side of the patient during TAVI. Therefore, this study was designed as a pilot and it was hypothesized that, despite the presence of a protective shield, the head of the anesthesiologist is exposed to radiation during TAVI procedures. Furthermore, it was investigated whether the use of a lead cap could reduce the radiation exposure of the head.
Methods
This trial was a single-center observational pilot-study performed at the Institut für Anästhesiologie, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, a university-hospital specialized in cardiovascular diseases, between February and March 2016. The decision for TAVI and the type of transcatheter valve was at the discretion of the institution´s heart team. All cases were conducted in the same catheterization laboratory using a Philips ALLURA XPER FD 10 X-ray system (Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V., Best, Nederlands). Informed consent and ethical approval was waived by the ethical committee of the Technische Universität München, as the measurements were done during routine procedures.
Endpoints
The reduction of the radiation exposure at the head of the attending anesthesiologist by the use of a lead head cap was chosen as primary endpoint.
As a secondary endpoint, the exposure of the anesthesiologist´s head to radiation during these procedures was assessed. “Exposure” was defined as the maximum radiation to which the head would have been exposed, if no lead cap would have been worn.
A personalized cap consisting of Novalite (Mavig, Munich Germany)–a lead composite material with a 0.35 mm lead equivalent–was used. To ensure comparable conditions, i.e. reproducibility of the results, the same cardiac anesthesiologist utilized the cap over a period of 15 work-days performing TAVI procedures. Six detectors—three at the outside of the cap and three at the inside (left side, right side and in the center of the forehead)—were analyzed, as shown in Fig 1.
Anesthesiologist’s standard radiation protection
The anesthesiologist’s personal protection consisted of a personalized lead coat (including upper arm cover), radiation protection glasses and thyroid protection. In accordance to German Federal Regulations, a personal dosimeter was worn at chest height underneath the protective coat. The position of the anesthesia machine and monitoring, as well as the position of the protection shield is shown in Fig 2. The top level of the lead shield was at 145 cm, while the anesthesiologist’s height was 182 cm, therefore the head of the anesthesiologist is actually beyond the mobile radiation shield.
As imaging modes, fluoroscopy and cine-angiography were used during the procedure. A low-dose program and commonly applied measures for radiation protection as focusing on the area of interest and minimizing the distance between patient and flat-panel detector were used [14]. Demographic data of all patients were recorded and the operative risk was assessed by the EuroSCORE II [15].
Procedure time, radiation time and dose area product (DAP) data were collected for each patient. DAP was used as a surrogate parameter for the total amount of radiation energy and therefore also as a relative indicator for the scatter dose the anesthesiologist is exposed to.
Procedures were conducted in general anesthesia or conscious sedation based on the patient´s comorbidities. Both anesthesia techniques have been described in detail before [16].
Measurement
Due to the spatial constraints inside the cap small detectors were required for all measurements. At the Individual Monitoring Service of the Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU) different dosimeters are used for the measurement of the operational radiation protection quantities Hp(10), Hp(3) and Hp(0.07) which provide conservative approximations for the effective dose, eye lens dose and skin dose, respectively [17–19]. All dosimeters consist of a passive detector and a dosimeter enclosure or holder. Due to the limited space inside the lead cap these enclosures could not be used in the experiment. The measurements were performed with LiF thermoluminescence detectors (specifically LiF:Mg,Cu,P material, i.e. MCP-N material), which are also utilized in extremity dosimeters like finger ring dosimeters. These detectors were adequate for the special requirements regarding detector size and high sensitivity.
It is imperative to carefully address the issues evaluating detector signals that may be biased by the omission of the dosimeter enclosures and the nonstandard placement attached to a lead cap. The calibration of a dosimeter as used in the automated analysis systems at the HMGU assumes correct placement of the dosimeter on a dedicated position on the body and considers backscattered radiation from the body as well as radiative processes inside the dosimeter enclosure such as shielding of low energy radiation and signal build up with higher photon energies. The use of the lead cap itself modifies the radiation environment by causing different backscatter for the detectors on the outside and hardening of the energy spectrum propagating to the inside of the cap. Therefore the result of such a dose measurement cannot be interpreted as a correct value for Hp(3) or Hp(0.07) in the strict metrological sense. However, the measurements can still be used to reliably estimate the effectiveness of the shielding of the cap by calculating the relative signal between the detectors outside and inside of the cap and by estimating the uncertainty of this relative measurement due to the modified photon spectrum and differences in backscatter.
Results
During the observational period a total of 32 transfemoral TAVI procedures was conducted in the cardiologic CathLab within 15 working days. Patient´s baseline and procedural data are shown in Table 1.
All procedures were conducted without procedural or anesthesiologic complications. No unplanned conversions to general anesthesia or major vascular injuries were registered.
The right outside dosimeter was discovered defect after measurements and therefore excluded from analysis. As shown in Fig 3 the highest radiation dose was detected on the left outside of the cap. Inside, there were comparable measurements at all three positions (left, right, center). Compared to the outside measurements, the radiation dose inside the cap was reduced as shown in Table 2.
Discussion
Despite the presence of a radiation protection shield, the anesthesiologist´s head was exposed to radiation. This is due to the fact that the top height of the protective shield was at 145 cm while the anesthesiologist was 182 cm in height Furthermore, it could be shown for the first time in this real-life setting that the use of a particular protective cap facilitates a significant reduction of radiation, the acting anesthesiologist may be exposed to. Different other radiation protection caps are available, partially also covering the oral mucosa and parotis glands. All clinically evaluated models have shown the ability to reduce the radiation exposure significantly between 62% and 90% [7, 8, 20, 21] in interventional cardiologists. Our measurements showed a reduction of 83–85%. Therefore, the protective potential for the anesthesiologist appears to be comparable with those for interventional cardiologists.
For many decades the brain, as a highly differentiated organ, has been considered to be radio-resistant according to the “Law of Bergoiné and Tribondeau” [22]. Newer research is contradictionary to this point of view [23] and an increasing number of interventional cardiologists with left sided brain tumors seem to support the thesis of a causal relationship [6]. Vascular and neurocognitive effects of radiation exposure have also been described [23, 24], but the occupational significance is still unclear at the moment. The head´s radiation exposure has shown to be related to the position of the physician with a focus on the left side [25]. As it can be expected from the cardiologist’s area of work (Fig 2), radiation protective caps have been proposed to be useful in addition to lead-glass shields [20, 25] and protective glasses [26]. Radiation exposure of the anesthesiologist working at the head of the patient is dependent on different variable factors like the angulation of the C-Arm, the dosis-area-product, volume-dependent scatter radiation and dose acquisition setting [27]. As several parts of the body (e.g. the face, lower legs, arms) are still uncovered, a multimodal approach to reduce the radiation exposure [14] is necessary. This includes the limit of radiation usage, decreased cine use, a detector positioned close to the patient, a decreased frame rate, software magnification and real-time dose monitoring [27–29]. Besides these techniques personalized (and fitting) radiation protection equipment (apron, thyroid shield, glasses) represent the current state of the art and have shown to reduce the exposition of the covered areas significantly [12]. Currently, only a dosimeter (worn at the chest below the lead coat) is mandatory in Germany.
For all heart valves, interventional procedures for the treatment of acquired structural heart disease are now available with increasing numbers. Anesthesia care for a considerable number of these patients with a multitude of comorbidities is mandatory. As a consequence, working in radiation environment like the CathLab will become more and more for anesthesiologists. Although radiation dosage has decreased by implementation of new technologies [30] and procedural experience [31] worldwide, the anesthesiologist’s exposure to radiation is generally considered to be higher in TAVI than in other interventional procedures [12, 32]. Newer protection systems for interventional cardiologists [12] are not suitable for anesthesiologists as they are designed for a static position and not for variable working positions. A solid shield may protect the anesthesiologist during the routine uneventful procedure. With 145 cm of height and 81cm width, the lead shield was lower than the head of the anesthesiologist. With a greater shield height, the access to the patient´s head would be impaired. Same is true for a hanging protective shield. Such a shield might protect the head of the anesthesiologist during a static position, but such a broad shield impairs the access to the patient’s head or the positioning of the C-Arm from the head side.
But in the presence of severe adverse events, demanding a mask ventilation or emergency induction of general anesthesia, this protection shield has to be removed. Despite a ten-year experience, severe adverse events still occur [33] in a considerable number of patients. A recent analysis of transfemoral TAVI procedures revealed a rate of conversion from sedation to general anesthesia in nearly 6%. Most of these conversions were due to procedural complications, followed by the need for general anesthesia due to patient´s pain or discomfort. While for the latter, the procedure–and fluoroscopy–can be interrupted, this might not be possible during procedure related complications. Aortic annular rupture, pericardial effusion or hemodynamic compromising aortic regurgitation require an immediate diagnosis and therapy. This must usually be done under fluoroscopy, with the anesthesiologist´s head close to the radiation device without protection. Therefore, it can be assumed that the exposition to radiation is markedly increased in these situations.
In 32 uneventful TAVI-procedures, a maximum outside radiation of 0.55±0.2 mSv was detected which translates into ~0.69±0.23 mSv Hp(3) with a backscatter correction applied to account for the presence of the lead cap. The exposure was highest at the left frontal side. This is caused by the working position of the anesthesiologist. In our setting, the anesthesia-equipment and monitoring are positioned at the right head side of the patient. As a consequence of this setting, the anesthesiologist has to work with the left frontal head side towards the radiation.
Limitations
The data obtained in this trial apply only for this specific equipment and setting and might not be generally applied. One limitation of this study is that the measured dose values in terms of Hp(3) exhibit somewhat large uncertainties due to the use of non-enclosed detectors and their placement inside and outside the lead cap. The uncertainties of the measurements were estimated by means of data from the uncertainty analysis of the HMGU extremity dosimeters [34] and by means of additional calibration measurements with the detectors and the lead cap on the ISO cylinder phantom [35] (head phantom) at the calibration facilities of the HMGU. All uncertainties in the following are given as expanded uncertainties [36] with a coverage factor of k = 2, i.e the 95% confidentiality level. The largest dose value outside the lead cap was 0.55±0.2 mSv, with the dominating uncertainty contributions arising from the energy response of the detector and statistical uncertainty. However, in the calibration measurements with the lead cap and a head phantom it was shown, that the presence of the lead cap shields the detector from backscattered radiation from the head phantom, therefore the actual value of the eye lens dose for a person not wearing a lead cap would be about 15%-25% higher depending on the radiation quality. The measured values inside the lead cap are in the order of 0.08±0.03 mSv. In this case the detector is used near the detection limit, which increases the uncertainties mostly due to background subtraction, however this effect could be alleviated by means of dedicated background dosimeters. Even though the measurement uncertainties are pronounced at these small dose values, the relative measurement between the outside and inside levels, i.e. the determined decrease of 85% exhibits a comparatively smaller uncertainty of approximately 11% due to the laws of error propagation. Therefore, the conclusion of the effectiveness of the shielding capability of the lead cap is valid.
Currently, about 650 transfemoral TAVI procedures per year are performed in our institution. Considering that this number increases and that the course of about 9% [37] is not uneventful and accompanied by a higher radiation exposure, it would be prudent for anesthesiologist to wear a lead cap to complete his personal protective equipment.
Conclusion
In this pilot study, we hypotized that the head of the anesthesiologist is exposed to radiation during TAVI. Furthermore, we evaluated the use of a lead cap to reduce the radiation exposure. In 32 uneventful TAVI procedures, the head was exposed to significant radiation. This primary due to the fact, that the protective shield was lower than the head of the anesthesiologist during routine care. As the anesthesia equipment and monitoring was placed on the right head side of the patient, the radiation exposure of the anesthesiologist´s head was highest on the left side. By wearing the lead cap during these procedures, a reduction of the heads radiation exposure of about 85% was achieved. Despite these findings, structural radiation protection, like protection shields, still remains of high importance.
References
- 1. Barbanti M, Webb JG, Gilard M, Capodanno D, Tamburino C. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 2017: state of the art. EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2017;13(AA):AA11–AA21. Epub 2017/09/25. pmid:28942382.
- 2. Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Kim WK, Liebetrau C, Dorr O, Nef H, et al. Trends in aortic valve replacement in Germany in 2015: transcatheter versus isolated surgical aortic valve repair. Clinical research in cardiology: official journal of the German Cardiac Society. 2017;106(6):411–9. Epub 2017/01/13. pmid:28078447.
- 3. Oguri A, Yamamoto M, Mouillet G, Gilard M, Laskar M, Eltchaninoff H, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Under General Versus Local Anesthesia: Subanalysis of the French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014. Epub 2014/07/10. pmid:25006175.
- 4. Christopoulos G, Makke L, Christakopoulos G, Kotsia A, Rangan BV, Roesle M, et al. Optimizing Radiation Safety in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Practical Approach. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87(2):291–301. pmid:26526181.
- 5. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O. Brain tumours among interventional cardiologists: a cause for alarm? Report of four new cases from two cities and a review of the literature. EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2012;7(9):1081–6. Epub 2011/12/31. pmid:22207231.
- 6. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(9):1368–72. Epub 2013/02/20. pmid:23419190.
- 7. Kuon E, Birkel J, Schmitt M, Dahm JB. Radiation exposure benefit of a lead cap in invasive cardiology. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2003;89(10):1205–10. Epub 2003/09/17. pmid:12975420; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1767881.
- 8. Karadag B, Ikitimur B, Durmaz E, Avci BK, Cakmak HA, Cosansu K, et al. Effectiveness of a lead cap in radiation protection of the head in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2013;9(6):754–6. Epub 2013/10/31. pmid:24169136.
- 9. van Rooijen BD, de Haan MW, Das M, Arnoldussen CW, de Graaf R, van Zwam WH, et al. Efficacy of radiation safety glasses in interventional radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(5):1149–55. pmid:24185812.
- 10. Aarsnes A, Dahle G, Fosse E, Rein KA, Aaberge L, Martinsen ACT. EVALUATION OF OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION DOSE IN TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2018;179(1):9–17. Epub 2017/10/17. pmid:29036717.
- 11. Sauren LD, van Garsse L, van Ommen V, Kemerink GJ. Occupational radiation dose during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78(5):770–6. Epub 2011/04/28. pmid:21523895.
- 12. Drews T, Pasic M, Juran R, Unbehaun A, Dreysse S, Kukucka M, et al. Safety considerations during transapical aortic valve implantation. Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. 2014;18(5):574–9. Epub 2014/02/15. pmid:24525856.
- 13. Kong Y, Struelens L, Vanhavere F, Vargas CS, Schoonjans W, Zhuo WH. Influence of standing positions and beam projections on effective dose and eye lens dose of anaesthetists in interventional procedures. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2015;163(2):181–7. Epub 2014/05/06. pmid:24795393.
- 14. Sharma D, Ramsewak A, O'Conaire S, Manoharan G, Spence MS. Reducing radiation exposure during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85(7):1256–61. pmid:24399646.
- 15. Rosa VE, Lopes AS, Accorsi TA, Fernandes JR, Spina GS, Sampaio RO, et al. EuroSCORE II and STS as mortality predictors in patients undergoing TAVI. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2016;62(1):32–7. Epub 2016/03/24. pmid:27008490.
- 16. Mayr NP, Hapfelmeier A, Martin K, Kurz A, van der Starre P, Babik B, et al. Comparison of sedation and general anaesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation on cerebral oxygen saturation and neurocognitive outcome. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(1):90–9. Epub 2015/10/02. pmid:26424178.
- 17.
ICRU. Quantities and Units in Radiation Protection Dosimetry. ICRU Report 51. 1993.
- 18. Report 85: Fundamental quantities and units for ionizing radiation. Journal of the ICRU. 2011;11(1):1–31. Epub 2011/04/01. 10.1093/jicru/ndr012. pmid:24174259.
- 19.
J V. IRCP PUBLICATION 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP. 2007.
- 20. Uthoff H, Quesada R, Roberts JS, Baumann F, Schernthaner M, Zaremski L, et al. Radioprotective lightweight caps in the interventional cardiology setting: a randomised controlled trial (PROTECT). EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2015;11(1):53–9. Epub 2015/05/20. pmid:25982649.
- 21. Alazzoni A, Gordon CL, Syed J, Natarajan MK, Rokoss M, Schwalm JD, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Radiation Protection With a Patient Lead Shield and a Novel, Nonlead Surgical Cap for Operators Performing Coronary Angiography or Intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(8):e002384. Epub 2015/08/09. pmid:26253734.
- 22. Villemin M. Rayons X et activité génitale. Comptes Rendus Sánces Acad Sci. 1906:723–5.
- 23. Picano E, Vano E, Domenici L, Bottai M, Thierry-Chef I. Cancer and non-cancer brain and eye effects of chronic low-dose ionizing radiation exposure. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:157. Epub 2012/05/01. pmid:22540409; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3495891.
- 24. Darby SC, Cutter DJ, Boerma M, Constine LS, Fajardo LF, Kodama K, et al. Radiation-related heart disease: current knowledge and future prospects. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2010;76(3):656–65. Epub 2010/02/18. pmid:20159360; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3910096.
- 25. Reeves RR, Ang L, Bahadorani J, Naghi J, Dominguez A, Palakodeti V, et al. Invasive Cardiologists Are Exposed to Greater Left Sided Cranial Radiation: The BRAIN Study (Brain Radiation Exposure and Attenuation During Invasive Cardiology Procedures). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(9):1197–206. Epub 2015/08/22. pmid:26292583.
- 26. Haga Y, Chida K, Kaga Y, Sota M, Meguro T, Zuguchi M. Occupational eye dose in interventional cardiology procedures. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):569. pmid:28373715
- 27.
Kumar G, ST R. Radiation Safety for the Interventional Cardiologist—A Practical Approach to Protecting Ourselves From the Dangers of Ionizing Radiation American College of Cardiology2016 [cited 2018 21.10.2018]. Available from: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2015/12/31/10/12/radiation-safety-for-the-interventional-cardiologist.
- 28. Cousins C, Miller DL, Bernardi G, Rehani MM, Schofield P, Vano E, et al. ICRP PUBLICATION 120: Radiological protection in cardiology. Annals of the ICRP. 2013;42(1):1–125. Epub 2012/11/13. pmid:23141687.
- 29. Duran A, Hian SK, Miller DL, Le Heron J, Padovani R, Vano E, et al. Recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology—A summary of recommendations for occupational radiation protection in interventional cardiology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(1):29–42. Epub 2013/03/12 2012/06/22. 10.1002/ccd.24520. pmid:23475846.
- 30. Lauterbach M, Hauptmann KE. Reducing Patient Radiation Dose With Image Noise Reduction Technology in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(5):834–8. Epub 2016/01/09. pmid:26742472.
- 31. D'Ancona G, Pasic M, Unbehaun A, Dreysse S, Drews T, Buz S, et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation: learning curve with reduced operating time and radiation exposure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(1):43–7. Epub 2013/10/03. pmid:24083797.
- 32. Ismail S, Khan F, Sultan N, Naqvi M. Radiation exposure to anaesthetists during interventional radiology. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(1):54–60. Epub 2009/11/20. pmid:19922509.
- 33. Walther T, Hamm CW, Schuler G, Berkowitsch A, Kotting J, Mangner N, et al. Perioperative Results and Complications in 15,964 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacements: Prospective Data From the GARY Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(20):2173–80. Epub 2015/03/20. pmid:25787198.
- 34.
VA82QMS04C. Bestimmung der Messunsicherheiten in der Teilkörperdosimetrie. HMGU QM Dokument. 2016.
- 35.
ISO. ISO/DIS 4037–1,2,3:2017(E). 2017.
- 36.
ISO. Uncertainty of measurement–Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995) ISO/IEC Guide 98–3. 1995.
- 37. Mayr NP, Wiesner G, Husser O, Joner M, Michel J, Knorr J, et al. Critical adverse events during transfemoral TAVR in conscious sedation. Is an anesthesiologic support mandatory? Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19(6s):41–6. Epub 2018/10/18. pmid:30327095.