Strategies to Reduce Radiation Exposure in Electrophysiology and Interventional Cardiology

Lead Cap Use in Interventional Cardiology: Time to Protect Our Head in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory?

Background: Radiation exposure is an occupational hazard for interventional cardiologists and cardiac catheterisation laboratory staff that can manifest with serious long-term health consequences. Personal protective equipment, including lead jackets and glasses, is common, but the use of radiation protective lead caps is inconsistent. Methods: A systematic review qualitative assessment of five observational studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines protocol was performed. Results: It was concluded that lead caps significantly reduce radiation exposure to the head, even when a ceiling-mounted lead shield was present. Conclusion: Although newer protective systems are being studied and introduced, tools, such as lead caps, need to be strongly considered and employed in the catheterisation laboratory as mainstay personal protective equipment.

The Inverse Correlation Between the Duration of Lifetime Occupational Radiation Exposure and the Prevalence of Atrial Arrhythmia

Objective

Advancements in fluoroscopy-assisted procedures have increased radiation exposure among cardiologists. Radiation has been linked to cardiovascular complications but its effect on cardiac rhythm, specifically, is underexplored.

Methods

Demographic, social, occupational, and medical history information was collected from board-certified cardiologists via an electronic survey. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the risk of atrial arrhythmias (AA).

Results

We received 1,478 responses (8.8% response rate) from cardiologists, of whom 85.4% were male, and 66.1% were ≤65 years of age. Approximately 36% were interventional cardiologists and 16% were electrophysiologists. Cardiologists > 50 years of age, with > 10,000 hours (h) of radiation exposure, had a significantly lower prevalence of AA vs. those with ≤10,000 h (11.1% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.019). A multivariable logistic regression was performed and among cardiologists > 50 years of age, exposure to > 10,000 radiation hours was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of AA, after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea (adjusted OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.85, p = 0.007). The traditional risk factors for AA (age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obstructive sleep apnea) correlated positively with AA in our data set. Cataracts, a well-established complication of radiation exposure, were more prevalent in those exposed to > 10,000 h of radiation vs. those exposed to ≤10,000 h of radiation, validating the dependent (AA) and independent variables (radiation exposure), respectively.

Conclusion

AA prevalence may be inversely associated with radiation exposure in Cardiologists based on self-reported data on diagnosis and radiation hours. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Impact of dose reducing software on patient and staff temple dose during fluoroscopically guided pacemaker insertion, closure devices implantation and coronary angiography procedures

The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of dose reducing software (ClarityIQ) on patient and staff dose during fluoroscopically guided cardiac procedures. Dose measurements were collected in a room without dose reducing software (n = 157) and compared with similar procedures performed in two rooms with the software (n = 1141). Procedures included diagnostic coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, deployment of cardiac closure devices (for occlusion of atrial septal defect, patent foramen ovale, and atrial appendage) and insertion of permanent pacemakers. The dose reducing software was found to be effective in reducing patient and staff dose by approximately 50%. This study has added to the limited literature reporting on the capability of dose reducing software to decrease radiation exposure during the implantation of cardiac closure devices, as well as demonstrating a reduction in dose to the cardiologist and nursing staff. Administrators should ensure timely upgrades to angiographic equipment to safeguard patients and staff against the potentially adverse effects of radiation exposure. Regardless of the use of dose reducing software, the mean occupational dose during closure devices was in descending order scout > scrub > cardiologist. Scrub nurse dose was found to be higher than the cardiologist during closure devices (0.98/0.26 μSv) and diagnostic coronary angiograms (1.51/0.82 μSv). Nursing staff should be aware that their levels of radiation dose during some cardiac procedures may come close to or even exceed that of the cardiologist.