J. Hayes

Reassessment of Radiation Risks from Electrophysiology Procedures Compared to Coronary Angiography

BACKGROUND Electrophysiology (EP) procedures have been reported to carry a significantly greater radiation risk than that of coronary angiography (CA). This is largely due to numerous reports linking severe deterministic radiation effects to long procedure and fluoroscopy times (FTs). This study documents low radiation doses achieved by strategies involving operator training and education as well as equipment and technique optimisation to reduce radiation risks. METHODS Records relating to 732 diagnostic EP and 1744 therapeutic EP procedures performed between January 2002 and December 2007 were analysed. Data from 1458 diagnostic only CA procedures performed in 2006 was used for comparison. For each procedure type, FT, number of digital frames acquired and estimated effective dose (E) were compared. RESULTS Although the FT for CA procedures is significantly less than for therapeutic EP procedures (FT for diagnostic EP being similar), EP procedures generally are associated with lower E, the exception being procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF). CONCLUSION Through the application of a comprehensive exposure minimisation strategy, the radiation risk to patients undergoing diagnostic and, therapeutic EP procedures (except AF ablation procedures) is significantly less than that faced by patients undergoing CA. E, however, is heavily dependent on procedure type and as such care must be taken in undertaking generalised comparisons for audit and benchmarking purposes.

Radiation risk reduction in cardiac electrophysiology through use of a gridless imaging technique.

AIMS It has been previously demonstrated that use of appropriate frame rates coupled with minimal use of high-dose digital acquisition can limit radiation risk to patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic electrophysiology (EP). Imaging without the anti-scatter grid has been proposed as a means of achieving further radiation reduction. We evaluate application of a gridless imaging technique to deliver further reductions in radiation risk to both patients and personnel. METHODS AND RESULTS Radiation and clinical data for EP procedures performed for 16 months from March 2012 were monitored. The period was divided into three phases: Phase 1 (March 2012-June 2012) provided a performance baseline (radiation output modelling and procedural risk adjustment calibration), Phase 2 (July 2012-September 2012) confirmation of performance with the grid, and Phase 3 (September 2012-June 2013) gridless imaging period. Statistical process control (SPC) charts were used to monitor for changes in radiation use and clinical outcomes (procedural success). Imaging without the grid halved the levels of radiation delivered in undertaking EP procedures. Although there was a perceptible impact on image quality with the grid removed. Review of the SPC chart monitoring procedural outcomes did not identify any discernable adverse impact on success rates. Selected use of the gridless technique is recommended with re-introduction of the grid in larger patients or during aspects of the procedure where image quality is important (e.g. transeptal punctures). CONCLUSION Use of a gridless imaging technique can contribute to a significant reduction in radiation risk to both patients and operators during cardiac EP procedures.