Renewable Revolution

Surgeons that routinely use fluoroscopy in vascular procedures and cardiac device implantation are suffering the effects of too much exposure to ionizing radiation. 

 
Europace. 2014 Jul;16(7):946-64. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut409. Epub 2014 May 2.

Practical ways to reduce radiation dose for patients and staff during device implantations and electrophysiological procedures.

Heidbuchel H1, Wittkampf FH2, Vano E3, Ernst S4, Schilling R5, Picano E6, Mont L7; Reviewers:, Jais P8, de Bono J9, Piorkowski C10, Saad E11, Femenia F5; European Heart Rhythm Association.

Author information

Abstract

Despite the advent of non-fluoroscopic technology, fluoroscopy remains the cornerstone of imaging in most interventional electrophysiological procedures, from diagnostic studies over ablation interventions to device implantation. Moreover, many patients receive additional X-ray imaging, such as cardiac computed tomography and others.

More and more complex procedures have the risk to increase the radiation exposure, both for the patients and the operators. The professional lifetime attributable excess cancer risk may be around 1 in 100 for the operators, the same as for a patient undergoing repetitive complex procedures. Moreover, recent reports have also hinted at an excess risk of brain tumours among interventional cardiologists.

Apart from evaluating the need for and justifying the use of radiation to assist their procedures, physicians have to continuously explore ways to reduce the radiation exposure. After an introduction on how to quantify the radiation exposure and defining its current magnitude in electrophysiology compared with the other sources of radiation, this position paper wants to offer some very practical advice on how to reduce exposure to patients and staff. The text describes how customization of the X-ray system, workflow adaptations, and shielding measures can be implemented in the cath lab. The potential and the pitfalls of different non-fluoroscopic guiding technologies are discussed.

Finally, we suggest further improvements that can be implemented by both the physicians and the industry in the future. We are confident that these suggestions are able to reduce patient and operator exposure by more than an order of magnitude, and therefore think that these recommendations are worth reading and implementing by any electrophysiological operator in the field.   

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.


KEYWORDS:

Exposure; Interventional electrophysiology; Radiation; Radioprotection; Risk