Reducing Radiation Exposure During CRT Implant Procedures: Single-Center Experience With Low-Dose Fluoroscopy Settings and a Sensor-Based Navigation System (MediGuide)

Three-dimensional mapping in cardiac implantable electronic device - a feasible and effective alternative to fluoroscopy

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, three-dimensional mapping technology has substantially aided the development of cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs). This article intends to present an outline of the use and benefits of three-dimensional (3D) mapping systems in CIEDs.

RESULT

As an alternative to fluoroscopy, 3D mapping greatly minimizes radiation exposure and eliminates the need for contrast dye during the implantation of CIEDs. Based on the visualization of the pacing lead tip and accurate anatomic reconstruction of the chamber of interest and a specialized mapping technique, 3D mapping technology dramatically improves the efficacy and success of the advanced cardiac implantable devices' placement. Additionally, it provides a superior option for those with complex medical conditions.

CONCLUSION

The use of 3D mapping technology in CIEDs has been proven feasible and effective by accumulating evidence. It is fair to anticipate that it will be widely used in CIED implantation in the future.

Peripheral Interventions Radiation Exposure Reduction Using a Sensor-Based Navigation System: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Background

Intravascular catheter positioning is done with radiography imaging. Increasing evidence indicates excessive ionizing radiation exposure for patients and physicians during catheterization procedures, making solutions to reduce radiation exposure a priority. This study evaluated the feasibility and impact of using sensor-based magnetic navigation on (i) fluoroscopy time and (ii) positioning accuracy and safety of a peripheral angioplasty balloon catheter.

Methods

All patients (n = 10) underwent a balloon-positioning protocol using 2 navigation methods sequentially: (i) magnetic navigation with minimal fluoroscopy; (ii) fluoroscopic navigation. The navigation method order was randomized, and 4 consecutive placements per method were performed. A target vascular bifurcation was used as a fiduciary landmark for both methods to determine accuracy.

Results

Balloon placements were successful with both navigation methods in all subjects, and no adverse events occurred. Magnetic guidance led to significant reductions in fluoroscopy time (0.37 ± 1.5 vs 15.0 ± 8.1 seconds, P < 0.001) and dose (0.3 ± 1.2 vs 24.1 ± 23.8 μGy.m², P < 0.01). The time duration for balloon alignment was similar for the 2 navigation methods (4.8 ± 1.4 vs 4.8 ± 2.3 seconds, P = 0.89), and the accuracy was almost identical (0.51 ± 0.41 vs 0.51 ± 0.32 mm, P = 0.97).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate the feasibility of using sensor-based magnetic guidance during simple peripheral interventional procedures; a significant reduction in ionizing radiation was achieved, with excellent positioning accuracy and safety. The clinical applications of magnetic guidance for device navigation during more complex percutaneous procedures should be evaluated.

Higher patient doses through X-ray imaging procedures

Medical imaging using X-rays has been one of the most popular imaging modalities ever since the discovery of X-rays 125 years ago. With unquestionable benefits, concerns about radiation risks have frequently been raised. Computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic guided interventional procedures have the potential to impart higher radiation exposure to patients than radiographic examinations. Despite technological advances, there have been instances of increased doses per procedure mainly because of better diagnostic information in images. However, cumulative dose from multiple procedures is creating new concerns as effective doses >100 mSv are not uncommon. There is a need for action at all levels. Manufacturers must produce equipment that can provide a quality diagnostic image at substantially lesser dose and better implementation of optimization strategies by users. There is an urgent need for the industry to develop CT scanners with sub-mSv radiation dose, a goal that has been lingering. It appears that a new monochromatic X-ray source will lead to replacement of X-ray tubes all over the world in coming years and will lead to a drastic reduction in radiation doses. This innovation will impact all X-ray imaging and will help dose reduction. For interventional procedures, the likely employment of robotic systems in practice may drastically reduce radiation exposures to operators- but patient exposure will still remain an issue. Training needs always need to be emphasized and practiced.

Comprehensive strategies to minimize radiation exposure during Interventional electrophysiology procedures: state-of-the-art review

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac electrophysiology (EP) procedures are frequently performed in patients with cardiac arrhythmias, chronic heart failure, and sudden cardiac death. Most EP procedures involve fluoroscopy, which results in radiation exposure to physicians, patients, and EP lab staff. Accumulated radiation exposure is a known health detriment to patients and physicians.

AREA COVERED

This review will summarize radiation exposure, dose metrics, complications of radiation exposure, factors affecting radiation exposure, minimizing radiation exposure, zero or near-zero fluoroscopy strategies, and up-to-date research in the area of reducing radiation exposure and best practices.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Comprehensive strategies should be implemented in EP laboratories to minimize radiation exposure with standard fluoroscopy. There are routine techniques that can mitigate significant amounts of radiation exposure using standard equipment within the EP lab. The operators need to emphasize that EP practices routinely incorporate non-ionizing radiation sources for cardiac imaging (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging, advanced electroanatomical mapping systems, intracardiac ultrasonography) in addition to other novel technologies to mitigate radiation exposure to patients and physicians.

Progress in zero-fluoroscopy implantation of cardiac electronic device

Fluoroscopy is the imaging modality routinely used for cardiac device implantation. Due to the rising concern regarding the harmful effects of radiation exposure to both the patients and operation staffs, many efforts have been made to develop alternative techniques to achieve zero-fluoroscopy implantation. In this review, we describe the different methods aimed at avoiding the application of fluoroscopy in recent years, and evaluate their feasibility and safety in cardiac electronic device implantation.

Fluoroscopy reduction during device implantation by using three-dimensional navigation. A single-center experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The use of nonfluoroscopic three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (3DM) systems reduces radiation exposure during ablation procedures. In this study, we sought to determine the value of 3DM during routine device implant procedures.

METHODS

Seventy nonselected patients underwent implantation of a single chamber, dual chamber, or biventricular device guided by Ensite (Abbott Laboratories) to limit fluoroscopy use and compared with 70 consecutive patients, who underwent matching procedures with standard fluoroscopy use (FL) in the period immediately preceding the use of 3DM. The venous anatomy, right atrium, and ventricle and coronary sinus were mapped with 0.035 inch J-wire, quadripolar catheter, and/or angioplasty wire. The leads were advanced under real-time visualization in Ensite.

RESULTS

3DM reduced both fluoroscopy time and dose. Median fluoroscopy time for FL vs 3DM was 5.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.8-8.1) vs 0.9 minutes (IQR: 0.6-1.9) (P < .001) for single chamber devices, 6.3 minutes (IQR: 5.1-7.9) vs 3.3 minutes (IQR: 1.9-4) (P < .001) for dual-chamber devices, and 28.6 minutes (IQR: 19.6-36.2) to 14.7 minutes (IQR: 10.4-22.3) (P = .009) for biventricular devices, respectively. The median air kerma for FL vs 3DM was 15.4 mGy (IQR: 8.1-30.2) vs 4 mGy (IQR: 1.8-8) (P < .001) for single chamber devices, 16 mGy (IQR: 12-18.5) to 9.4 mGy (IQR: 7.5-11.3) (P = .001) for dual-chamber devices, and 324 mGy (IQR: 143-668.7) to 115 mGy (IQR:77-204) (P = .014) for biventricular devices, respectively. There were no procedural complications. At 3-month follow-up, there was no difference in voltage threshold measurements between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of 3DM leads to significantly reduced fluoroscopy time and fluoroscopy dose during routine device implantation.

Reducing radiation exposure during atrial fibrillation ablation using lectures to promote awareness

Objective

Recently, concern has increased regarding the hazards of radiation exposure in patients and laboratory staff. Since the numbers of complex catheter ablations (CA) performed, duration of procedure times, and need for multiple sessions have increased, radiation exposure during each session needs to be minimised. Our study aimed to assess the impact of awareness on radiation exposure during CA for atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

Mini-course lectures was delivered to the physicians and staff in the electrophysiology division. Its effect on the fluoroscopic time and radiation dose during AF ablation before (Group I, n=70), shortly after (Group II: n=70) and remotely after the mini-lecture (Group III, n=70) were evaluated. Patient demographics, preoperative testing and procedural parameters were collected.

Results

The fluoroscopic time significantly reduced after the lecture (Group I and II: 25.1±10.0 and 15.1±7.3 min, respectively (p<0.0001)), and remained so in Group III (13.0±5.4 min), despite the increase in the number of persistent AFs. The radiation dose also significantly reduced (Groups I, II, III: 295.0±263.0, 109.6±103.5 and 110.1±89.6 mGy, respectively (p<0.0001)).

Conclusion

Awareness on radiation exposure led to a significant reduction in fluoroscopic time and radiation dose during CA for AF, the effect of which persisted even to remote periods following the procedure.

Impact of cardiac resynchronisation therapy on cardiologists' exposure to radiation during implantation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Cardiologists are among the health professionals that are most exposed to ionizing radiation, but there is no recent study quantifying overexposure of physicians during cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) procedures compared to 'classical' implantation of pacemakers (PMs) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to measure and compare operator exposure to radiation during implantation of PM and ICD with or without CRT. The study population comprised all PMs and ICDs implanted in a large referral centre over a six months period. The endpoint was operator radiation exposure, assessed using a personal electronic dosimeter located on operator's chest. In total, 169 PM/ICD implantations were analysed, 19 of which included CRT. Compared with 'classical' implantation, cardiologist radiation exposure was 9-fold greater during CRT procedures (p < 0.001). Physician exposure was related to dose-area product (R² = 0.21 during 'classical' implantations and R² = 0.57 during CRT procedures). Our study shows that cardiologists' exposure to radiation during CRT implantation was 9-fold greater than during procedures without CRT.

Minimizing Radiation in the Modern Electrophysiology Laboratory

Historically, the electrophysiology laboratory has relied heavily on the use of ionizing radiation in the form of fluoroscopy for a broad range of interventions and diagnostics. As the harmful effects of radiation have become increasingly recognized and procedural technologies have advanced, electrophysiologists have adopted new workflows. The purpose of this article is to review the available literature and experience in minimizing radiation in the modern electrophysiology laboratory. This review first covers general approaches to reducing fluoroscopy radiation in the electrophysiology suite, with concepts that apply across all procedure types. These include the reduction of infrared emission through fastidious fluoroscopy settings, new and proven solutions for radiation shielding, and methods of creating distance between the radiation source and the operator to reduce exposure. Following this discussion, we review specific task-based techniques for reducing radiation during special electrophysiologic procedures and workflows such as vascular access, coronary sinus lead placement, catheter manipulation, and periprocedural planning studies.

Reducing radiation exposure during procedures performed in the electrophysiology laboratory

INTRODUCTION

Expert societies recently published strong recommendations to reduce the exposure of patients and staff to ionizing radiation (IR) during interventional and electrophysiology (EP) procedures. However, adherence to these guidelines remains difficult and the impact of implementing such recommendations is poorly characterized.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a single-center cohort study to quantify radiation exposure over time in three EP laboratories at the Montreal Heart Institute during 5,546 consecutive procedures from 2012 to 2015 by 11 primary operators. Overall, 2,618 (47.2%) procedures were catheter-based and 2,928 (52.8%) were device interventions. Interventions to reduce radiation exposure included educational initiatives to raise awareness (i.e., limiting cine acquisition, patient position, table height), slower frame rate, lower radiation dose per pulse, collimation, and integration with 3-D mapping systems and/or MediGuide technology. An 85% reduction in IR exposure was observed from 2012 to 2015, with the mean dose-area-product (DAP) decreasing from 7.65 ± 0.05 Gy·cm² to 1.15 ± 0.04 Gy·cm² (P < 0.001). This was true for catheter-based procedures (mean DAP 16.99 ± 0.08 to 2.00 ± 0.06 Gy·cm² , P < 0.001) and device interventions (mean DAP 4.18 ± 0.06 to 0.64 ± 0.05 Gy·cm² , P < 0.001). The median effective dose of IR recorded per quarter by 282 cervical dosimeters on EP staff decreased from 0.57 (IQR 0.18, 1.03) mSv in 2012 to 0.00 (IQR 0.00, 0.19) mSv in 2015, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Enforcing good clinical practices with simple measures and low-dose fluoroscopy settings are highly effective in reducing IR exposure in the EP lab. These promising results should encourage other EP labs to adopt similar protective measures.

Ultra-low radiation dose during electrophysiology procedures using optimized new generation fluoroscopy technology

BACKGROUND

Electrophysiology procedures require fluoroscopic guidance, with the associated potentially adverse effects of ionizing radiation. Newer fluoroscopy systems have more features that enable dose-reduction strategies. This study aimed to investigate any reduction in radiation dose between an older fluoroscopy system (Philips Integris H5000, Philips Healthcare, Einhoven, Netherlands) and one of the latest systems (Siemens Artis Q, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany), optimized with dose-reduction strategies.

METHODS

Radiation dose measures were collected over a 2-year period in a single electrophysiology laboratory. Procedures were separated into seven groups: devices, biventricular devices, electrophysiology studies, standard radiofrequency ablation, complex atrial ablation, ablation for ventricular arrhythmias, and pulmonary vein isolation. In the first year, an older fluoroscopy system was used, and in the second year, a new system, with dose reduction strategies. Comparisons were also made to the literature with regard to radiation dose levels.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics, fluoroscopy times, number of digital acquisitions, procedural times, and procedural success were largely similar between the old and new system across procedure groups. Overall dose area product (DAP) was reduced by 91% (5.0 [2.0-17.0] to 0.45 [0.16-2.61] Gycm² [P > 0.001]) with the new system and was lower across all groups. DAP readings with the new system are some of the lowest published in the literature in all groups.

CONCLUSION

An optimized contemporary digital fluoroscopy system, with low radiation dose configuration and continued good procedural practice, can result in ultra-low radiation levels for all electrophysiology procedures, without compromising procedural time or procedural success.