The effect of an ultra-low frame rate and antiscatter grid-less radiation protocol for cardiac device implantations

The Fluoroless Future in Electrophysiology: A State-of-the-Art Review

Fluoroscopy has always been the cornerstone imaging method of interventional cardiology procedures. However, radiation exposure is linked to an increased risk of malignancies and multiorgan diseases. The medical team is even more exposed to X-rays, and a higher incidence of malignancies was reported in this professional group. In the last years, X-ray exposure has increased rapidly, involving, above all, the medical team and young patients and forcing alternative fluoroless imaging methods. In cardiac electrophysiology (EP) and pacing, the advent of 3D electroanatomic mapping systems with dedicated catheters has allowed real-time, high-density reconstruction of both heart anatomy and electrical activity, significantly reducing the use of fluoroscopy. In addition, the diffusion of intracardiac echocardiography has provided high anatomical resolution of moving cardiac structures, providing intraprocedural guidance for more complex catheter ablation procedures. These methods have largely demonstrated safety and effectiveness, allowing for a dramatic reduction in X-ray delivery in most arrhythmias' ablations. However, some technical concerns, as well as higher costs, currently do not allow their spread out in EP labs and limit their use to only procedures that are considered highly complex and time-consuming and in young patients. In this review, we aim to update the current employment of fluoroless imaging in different EP procedures, focusing on its strengths and weaknesses.

Results from a real-time dosimetry study during left atrial ablations performed with ultra-low dose radiation settings

Background

Three-dimensional mapping systems and the use of ultra-low dose radiation protocols have supported minimization of radiation dose during left atrial ablation procedures. By using optimal shielding, scattered radiation reaching the operator can be further reduced. This prospective study was designed to determine the remaining operator radiation exposure during left atrial catheter ablations using real-time dosimetry.

Methods

Radiation dose was recorded using real-time digital dosimetry badges outside the lead apron during 201 consecutive left atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. All procedures were performed using the same X‑ray system (Siemens Healthineers Artis dBc; Siemens Healthcare AG, Erlangen, Germany) programmed with ultra-low dose radiation settings including a low frame rate (two frames per second), maximum copper filtration, and an optimized detector dose. To reduce scattered radiation to the operators, table-suspended lead curtains, ceiling-suspended leaded plastic shields, and radiation-absorbing shields on the patient were positioned in an overlapping configuration.

Results

The 201 procedures included 139 (69%) pulmonary vein isolations (PVI) (20 cryoballoon ablations, 119 radiofrequency ablations, with 35 cases receiving additional ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus) and 62 (31%) PVI plus further left atrial substrate ablation.

Mean radiation dose measured as dose area product for all procedures was 128.09 ± 187.87 cGy ∙ cm² with a mean fluoroscopy duration of 9.4 ± 8.7 min. Real-time dosimetry showed very low average operator doses of 0.52 ± 0.10 µSv. A subanalysis of 51 (25%) procedures showed that the radiation burden for the operator was highest during pulmonary vein angiography.

Conclusion

The use of ultra-low dose radiation protocols in combination with optimized shielding results in extremely low scattered radiation reaching the operator.

State of Fluoroless Procedures in Cardiac Electrophysiology Practice

In the past decade, the use of interventional electrophysiological (EP) procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias has exponentially increased. These procedures usually require fluoroscopy to guide the advancement and frequent repositioning of intracardiac catheters, resulting in both the patient and the operator being subjected to a considerable degree of radiation exposure. Although shielding options such as lead gowns, glasses, and pull-down shields are useful for protecting the operator, they do not lessen the patient’s level of exposure. Furthermore, the prolonged use of lead gowns can exponentiate the onset of orthopedic problems among operators. Recent advancements in three-dimensional cardiac mapping systems and the use of radiation-free imaging technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging and intracardiac ultrasound allow operators to perform EP procedures with minimal or even no fluoroscopy. In this review, we sought to describe the state of fluoroless procedures in EP practice.

Radiation exposure during cardiac device implantation: Lessons learned from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Little data are available about radiation exposure during cardiac electrical device implantation, and no dose reference levels have been published. This multicenter, prospective, observational study assesses patient and staff radiation exposure during cardiac device implantations, and aims at defining dose reference levels.

METHODS

Patient demographic, procedural, and radiation data were obtained for 657 procedures from nine institutions. Physician and staff exposure were measured using real-time dosimeters worn beneath and above lead apron. Statistical analysis included fluoroscopy time (FT), dose-area product (DAP), and DAP adjusted for FT and body mass index.

RESULTS

Pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators were implanted in 481 and 176 patients, respectively. Of these, 152 were treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Median FTs were 837s (interquartile range [IQR]: 480-1323), 117s (IQR: 69-209), and 101s (IQR: 58-162), and median DAPs were 1410 (IQR: 807-2601), 150 (IQR: 72-338), and 129 (IQR: 72-332) cGy.cm² for biventricular, dual chamber, and ventricular device implantation, respectively. Dose reference levels correspond to the third quartile values. During CRT, higher exposure was observed with four X-ray systems than with the two newer and customizable ones (adjusted DAP of 0.90 [IQR: 0.26-1.01] and 0.29 [IQR: 0.23-0.39], respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Based on real-life measurements, this multicenter registry provides dose reference levels and may help centers assess radiation exposure. Although biventricular device implantation was responsible for the highest radiation exposure, FT was meaningfully shortened compared to previously reported values. For a same FT, the use of new generators and custom settings has significantly reduced DAP.

Evaluation of a new ultralow-dose radiation protocol for electrophysiological device implantation: A near-zero fluoroscopy approach for device implantation

BACKGROUND

Radiation is one of the main hazards of electrophysiological device implantation, and insertion of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices in particular is associated with high radiation doses.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new ultralow-dose radiation protocol on radiation doses, success rate, and safety of electrophysiological device implantations.

METHODS

In 2018, we established a new ultralow-dose radiation protocol (reduced pulse width, increased thickness of minimum copper filters, reduced detector entrance dose, reduced pulse rate, optimized image postprocessing settings) for de novo device implantation at our hospital. A total of 1173 patients (11% single-chamber devices, 69% dual-chamber devices, 20% CRT devices) were analyzed. Five hundred twelve patients (44%) in the ultralow-dose group were compared to 661 patients (66%) treated during 2017 with a conventional low-dose protocol.

RESULTS

With the ultralow-dose radiation protocol, effective doses could be reduced by 59% (median 0.25 [interquartile range: 0.11-0.63] vs median 0.10 [interquartile range: 0.03-0.28] mSv; P <.0001) per procedure without a significant change in procedure time (P = .5). This dose reduction could be achieved without decreasing procedure success (P = 1) or increasing complication rate (P = .8). Male gender, higher body mass index, increased procedure and fluoroscopy times, and use of the conventional radiation protocol were independent predictors of higher radiation doses in multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

By establishing a new ultralow-dose radiation protocol, we could significantly decrease radiation exposure, reaching the lowest radiation doses for electrophysiological device implantation reported to date.