27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007.

          The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation each conducted respective assessments of all radiation sources in the United States and worldwide. The goal of this article is to summarize and combine the results of these two publicly available surveys and to compare the results with historical information. In the United States in 2006, about 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations and 18 million nuclear medicine examinations were performed. The United States accounts for about 12% of radiologic procedures and about one-half of nuclear medicine procedures performed worldwide. In the United States, the frequency of diagnostic radiologic examinations has increased almost 10-fold (1950-2006). The U.S. per-capita annual effective dose from medical procedures has increased about sixfold (0.5 mSv [1980] to 3.0 mSv [2006]). Worldwide estimates for 2000-2007 indicate that 3.6 billion medical procedures with ionizing radiation (3.1 billion diagnostic radiologic, 0.5 billion dental, and 37 million nuclear medicine examinations) are performed annually. Worldwide, the average annual per-capita effective dose from medicine (about 0.6 mSv of the total 3.0 mSv received from all sources) has approximately doubled in the past 10-15 years. (c) RSNA, 2009.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures.

            Physicians performing interventional procedures are chronically exposed to ionizing radiation, which is known to pose increased cancer risks. We recently reported 9 cases of brain cancer in interventional cardiologists. Subsequently, we received 22 additional cases from around the world, comprising an expanded 31 case cohort. Data were transmitted to us during the past few months. For all cases, where possible, we endeavored to obtain the baseline data, including age, gender, tumor type, and side involved, specialty (cardiologist vs radiologist), and number of years in practice. These data were obtained from the medical records, interviews with patients, when possible, or with family members and/or colleagues. The present report documented brain and neck tumors occurring in 31 physicians: 23 interventional cardiologists, 2 electrophysiologists, and 6 interventional radiologists. All physicians had worked for prolonged periods (latency period 12 to 32 years, mean 23.5 ± 5.9) in active interventional practice with exposure to ionizing radiation in the catheterization laboratory. The tumors included 17 cases (55%) of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), 2 astrocytomas (7%), and 5 meningiomas (16%). In 26 of 31 cases, data were available regarding the side of the brain involved. The malignancy was left sided in 22 (85%), midline in 1, and right sided in 3 operators. In conclusion, these results raise additional concerns regarding brain cancer developing in physicians performing interventional procedures. Given that the brain is relatively unprotected and the left side of the head is known to be more exposed to radiation than the right, these findings of disproportionate reports of left-sided tumors suggest the possibility of a causal relation to occupational radiation exposure.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The appropriate and justified use of medical radiation in cardiovascular imaging: a position document of the ESC Associations of Cardiovascular Imaging, Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Electrophysiology.

              The benefits of cardiac imaging are immense, and modern medicine requires the extensive and versatile use of a variety of cardiac imaging techniques. Cardiologists are responsible for a large part of the radiation exposures every person gets per year from all medical sources. Therefore, they have a particular responsibility to avoid unjustified and non-optimized use of radiation, but sometimes are imperfectly aware of the radiological dose of the examination they prescribe or practice. This position paper aims to summarize the current knowledge on radiation effective doses (and risks) related to cardiac imaging procedures. We have reviewed the literature on radiation doses, which can range from the equivalent of 1-60 milliSievert (mSv) around a reference dose average of 15 mSv (corresponding to 750 chest X-rays) for a percutaneous coronary intervention, a cardiac radiofrequency ablation, a multidetector coronary angiography, or a myocardial perfusion imaging scintigraphy. We provide a European perspective on the best way to play an active role in implementing into clinical practice the key principle of radiation protection that: 'each patient should get the right imaging exam, at the right time, with the right radiation dose'.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Europace
                Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology
                1532-2092
                1099-5129
                Jul 2014
                : 16
                : 7
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Hein.Heidbuchel@uz.kuleuven.ac.be.
                [2 ] Heart Lung Center, Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
                [3 ] Radiology Department, Medicine School, Complutense University and San Carlos Hospital, IdISSC, Madrid 28040, Spain.
                [4 ] NIHR Biomedical Research Unit and Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Sydney Street, SW3 6NP, London, UK.
                [5 ] Biomedical Research Unit, Bart's Health NHS Trust and the William Harvey Research Institute, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
                [6 ] CNR Biomedical Sciences Department, Institute of Clinical Physiology, 56124, Pisa, Italy.
                [7 ] Department of Cardiology, Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Catalonia 08036, Spain.
                [8 ] Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque and the Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux II, Bordeaux, France.
                [9 ] Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Department of Cardiology, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
                [10 ] University Dresden, Heart Center, Electrophysiology, Dresden, Germany.
                [11 ] Hospital Pró-Cardíaco, Setor de Arritmia Invasiva, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
                Article
                eut409
                10.1093/europace/eut409
                24792380
                b5c28330-82f8-49aa-9c93-2d6dc6b85dc8
                Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
                History

                Exposure,Interventional electrophysiology,Radiation,Radioprotection,Risk

                Comments

                Comment on this article