Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation

Meta-analysis of pulmonary vein isolation ablation for atrial fibrillation conventional vs low- and zero-fluoroscopy approaches

INTRODUCTION

Radiation exposure during catheter ablation procedures is a significant hazard for both patients and operators. Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures have been historically associated with higher fluoroscopy usage than other electrophysiology procedures. Recent efforts have been made to reduce dependence on fluoroscopy during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) ablation procedures using alternative techniques.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing zero or low fluoroscopy (LF) vs conventional fluoroscopy (CF) approaches for AF ablation. Outcomes of interest included acute and 12-month procedural efficacy, safety, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product. Aggregated data were analyzed with random-effects models, using a Bayesian hierarchical approach.

RESULTS

A total of 2228 participants (LF, n = 1190 vs CF, n = 1038) from 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of AF recurrence in 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.343 [0.771-2.340]; P = .297), redo-ablation procedures (OR [95% CI] = 0.521 [0.198-1.323]; P = .186), and procedural complications (OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.485-2.204]; P = .979) were similar between LF- and CF-ablation groups. In comparison to CF ablation, LF ablation led to shorter procedure duration (weighted mean differences [WMDs] [95% CI] = -14.6 minutes [-22.5 to -6.8]; P < .001), fluoroscopy time (WMD [95% CI] = -8.8 minutes [-11.9 to -5.9]; P < .001), and dose area product (WMD [95% CI] = -1946 mGy/cm² [-2685 to 1207]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

LF approaches have similar clinical efficacy and safety as CF approaches for PVI. LF approaches are associated with shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy usage, and dose area product during PVI.

Ionizing Radiation in Interventional Cardiology and Electrophysiology

Fluoroscopy-guided procedures constitute a major part in the practice of cardiology. These procedures are also a source of human-made ionizing radiation. Although the benefits of performing the procedure surpass the radiogenic risks in most cases, the risks are not negligible. Exposure to ionizing radiation may lead to tissue injuries and potential increase in risk of cancer. Both patients and operating physicians are exposed to these risks in variable degrees. The institution of radiation safety practices alone significantly reduces radiation exposure. Beyond the interventional laboratory, increasing physicians' awareness to health-related risks of ionizing radiation is crucial in reducing unnecessary testing and increases receptiveness to patient risks. Incorporating the radiogenic risks of a future procedure in patient-informed consent also increases patients' awareness to potential consequences. Innovation in imaging technology resulted in a plethora of alternate modalities. Electroanatomical mapping, magnetic navigation systems, robotic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-assisted techniques are examples of clinically used modalities that limit the exposure of patients and operating physicians to radiation. Documentation of patients' exposure in their medical records is essential. Tracking of patients' cumulative exposure can be implemented at an institutional level. Identifying patients with the highest exposure would help shed light on a blind spot in our current practice, as the implications are unclear.

The effectiveness of additional lead-shielding drape and low pulse rate fluoroscopy in protecting staff from scatter radiation during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)

PURPOSE

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) often requires a long fluoroscopic time and protection from scatter radiation. This study reports on scatter radiation levels during CRT, with and without additional shielding, and using standard or low pulse rate fluoroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Additional lead-shielding drape (0.35-mm lead equivalent) was used on the left side of the table and pulsed fluoroscopy was performed at rates of 10 pulses/s (usual rate) and 7.5 pulses/s (low pulse rate). Fluoroscopy scatter radiation was measured for both pulse rates using an acrylic phantom with a radiation survey meter, both with and without the additional lead-shielding drape.

RESULTS

With the additional lead-shielding drape, the fluoroscopy scatter radiation was reduced by 74.3% at 10 pulses/s and 78.6% at 7.5 pulses/s. If the fluoroscopy was changed from 10 pulses/s to 7.5 pulses/s, the scattered radiation at the primary physician's position was reduced by 24.0%. The combined use of additional shielding drape and low pulse rate fluoroscopy reduced scatter radiation by over 80%.

CONCLUSION

Additional lead-shielding drape and low pulse rate fluoroscopy are effective in reducing the scattered radiation dose to physicians and nurses during CRT.

Contact-force-guided vs. contact-force-blinded catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter: a prospective study

Aims

It remains unknown whether contact force (CF) sensing technology is of value for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation. We prospectively evaluated procedural parameters and outcomes of CF-guided vs. CF-blinded CTI ablation for typical atrial flutter (AFL).

Methods and results

A total of 70 consecutive patients (62.5 ± 10.9 years) undergoing CTI ablation for AFL were prospectively enrolled, 35 in CF-blinded and 35 in CF-guided groups. A CF-sensing catheter (power 25-35 W) was used in all. In the CF-guided group, CF target range was 10-25 g, whereas in the CF-blinded group, the operator was blinded to CF. The isthmus was divided into anterior, middle, and posterior segments for region-specific CF analysis. The procedural endpoint of bidirectional isthmus block following a 20-min observation period was achieved in all. A trend towards lower fluoroscopy and procedure duration was observed when the CF-guided group was compared with the CF-blinded group. The total radiofrequency (RF) energy delivery time required to achieve bidirectional block was significantly lower in the CF-guided vs. CF-blinded group [10.0 min (IQR 8.3;15.1) vs. 15.9 min (IQR 9.6;24.7), P= 0.0020], with a significant inverse correlation between CF and total RF delivery time (r = -0.36; P= 0.0027). Mean CF measurements significantly increased from anterior to posterior anatomical zones of CTI in the CF-blinded group (ANOVA P= 0.0466).

Conclusions

Catheter ablation of AFL guided by real-time CF assessment results in a significant reduction in total RF delivery time. Real-time CF measurements facilitate the maintenance of homogenous efficient contact all along the CTI, particularly in the anterior segment where CF is generally lower.

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.

Effectiveness of a New Lead-Shielding Device and Additional Filter for Reducing Staff and Patient Radiation Exposure During Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study Using a Human Phantom

Interventional radiology procedures often involve lengthy exposure to fluoroscopy-derived radiation. We therefore devised a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) procedure using a human phantom that proved to protect the patient and physician by reducing the radiation dose. We evaluated a new lead-shielding device and separately attached additional filters (1.0-, 2.0-, and 3.0-mm Al filters and a 0.5-mm Cu filter) during VFSS to reduce the patient's entrance skin dose (ESD). A monitor attached to the human phantom's neck measured the ESD. We also developed another lead shield (VFSS Shielding Box, 1.0-mm Pb equivalent) and tested its efficacy using the human phantom and an ionization chamber radiation survey meter with and without protection from scattered radiation at the physician's position on the phantom. We then measured the scattered radiation (at 90 and 150 cm above the floor) after combining the filters with the VFSS Shielding Box. With the additional filters, the ESD was reduced by 15.4-55.1%. With the VFSS Shielding Box alone, the scattered radiation was reduced by about 10% compared with the dose without additional shielding. With the VFSS Shielding Box and filters combined, the scattered radiation dose was reduced by a maximum of about 44% at the physician's position. Thus, the additional lead-shielding device effectively provided protection from scattered radiation during fluoroscopy. These results indicate that the combined VFSS Shielding Box and filters can effectively reduce the physician's and patient's radiation doses.

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.

Reduction of Fluoroscopy Time and Radiation Dosage During Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Radiofrequency catheter ablation has become the treatment of choice for atrial fibrillation (AF) that does not respond to antiarrhythmic drug therapy. During the procedure, fluoroscopy imaging is still considered essential to visualise catheters in real-time. However, radiation is often ignored by physicians since it is invisible and the long-term risks are underestimated. In this respect, it must be emphasised that radiation exposure has various potentially harmful effects, such as acute skin injury, malignancies and genetic disease, both to patients and physicians. For this reason, every electrophysiologist should be aware of the problem and should learn how to decrease radiation exposure by both changing the setting of the system and using complementary imaging technologies. In this review, we aim to discuss the basics of X-ray exposure and suggest practical instructions for how to reduce radiation dosage during AF ablation procedures.

Evaluation of a new very low dose imaging protocol: feasibility and impact on X-ray dose levels in electrophysiology procedures

Aims

This study presents and evaluates the impact of a new lowest-dose fluoroscopy protocol (Siemens AG), especially designed for electrophysiology (EP) procedures, on X-ray dose levels.

Methods and results

From October 2014 to March 2015, 140 patients underwent an EP study on an Artis zee angiography system. The standard low-dose protocol was operated at 23 nGy (fluoroscopy) and at 120 nGy (cine-loop), the new lowest-dose protocol was operated at 8 nGy (fluoroscopy) and at 36 nGy (cine-loop). Procedural data, X-ray times, and doses were analysed in 100 complex left atrial and in 40 standard EP procedures. The resulting dose–area products were 877.9 ± 624.7 µGym² (n = 50 complex procedures, standard low dose), 199 ± 159.6 µGym² (n = 50 complex procedures, lowest dose), 387.7 ± 36.0 µGym² (n = 20 standard procedures, standard low dose), and 90.7 ± 62.3 µGym² (n = 20 standard procedures, lowest dose), P < 0.01. In the low-dose and lowest-dose groups, procedure times were 132.6 ± 35.7 vs. 126.7 ± 34.7 min (P = 0.40, complex procedures) and 72.3 ± 20.9 vs. 85.2 ± 44.1 min (P = 0.24, standard procedures), radiofrequency (RF) times were 53.8 ± 26.1 vs. 50.4 ± 29.4 min (P = 0.54, complex procedures) and 10.1 ± 9.9 vs. 12.2 ± 14.7 min (P = 0.60, standard procedures). One complication occurred in the standard low-dose and lowest-dose groups (P = 1.0).

Conclusion

The new lowest-dose imaging protocol reduces X-ray dose levels by 77% compared with the currently available standard low-dose protocol. From an operator standpoint, lowest X-ray dose levels create a different, reduced image quality. The new image quality did not significantly affect procedure or RF times and did not result in higher complication rates. Regarding radiological protection, operating at lowest-dose settings should become standard in EP procedures.