title: Observations and Considerations on Patient X-ray Exposure in the Electrophysiology Lab.
abstract: To assess patient radiation during catheter ablation procedures and operator differences. From 84 patients (51 males, age 63 ± 10 years) undergoing complex catheter ablation by three experienced operators we collected: body mass index (BMI), procedure type and time, fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), air kerma and X-ray system setting (cine, collimation and angiographic imaging angle). A new factor, fluoroscopy DAP-fluoroscopy time ratio, was introduced to compare operator differences. The results show the average procedure time was 179 (± 57) minutes (min), fluoroscopy time was 31 (± 21) min, DAP was 26.4 (± 19.6) Gy.cm(2) and air kerma was 0.26 (± 0.19) Gy. Procedure types were: pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (52 %), redo PVI (11 %), pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) (14 %), ventricular tachycardia (VT) (8 %) and others (15 %). Inter-operator difference was observed in fluoroscopy and cine usage. Fluoroscopy DAP-time ratios showed a similar level of patient radiation dose rate by operator A and B (correlation: 0.89), and a significantly higher dose rate by operator C (correlation: 0.20, p<0.001; 0.26, p<0.01, to operator A and B). In conclusion, operators should be aware of patient radiation exposure levels and the influencing factors. Inter- and intra-operator differences can be measured and bench marked for improvement in X-ray efficiency and patient radiation reduction.
authors.affiliation: Scientist, Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Xianxian
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Jiang
authors.affiliation: Cardiologist, Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Lukas Rc
authors.initials: LR
authors.lastname: Dekker
keywords: Catheter ablation; electrophysiology; operator difference; patient radiation dose; radiation reduction
references.citation: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997 Jul;20(7):1834-9
references.pmid: 9249839
references.citation: Circulation. 2001 Jul 3;104(1):58-62
references.pmid: 11435338
references.citation: Heart Rhythm. 2005 May;2(5):474-82
references.pmid: 15840470
references.citation: Circulation. 2004 Nov 9;110(19):3003-10
references.pmid: 15505084
references.citation: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010 Aug;33(8):1003-12
references.pmid: 20456650
references.citation: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011 Oct;4(5):630-6
references.pmid: 21841188
references.citation: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011 May;34(5):563-70
references.pmid: 21609338
references.citation: Radiographics. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):1033-45
references.pmid: 11452079
references.citation: Circulation. 2005 Mar 8;111(9):1100-5
references.pmid: 15723973
references.citation: Circulation. 1991 Dec;84(6):2376-82
references.pmid: 1959193
references.citation: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Jul 17;50(3):234-42
references.pmid: 17631216
references.citation: Curr Opin Cardiol. 2000 Jan;15(1):29-40
references.pmid: 10666659
references.citation: Circulation. 1999 Jan 19;99(2):262-70
references.pmid: 9892593
references.citation: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003 Jan;26(1 Pt 2):288-91
references.pmid: 12687830
references.citation: Am J Cardiol. 1992 Jul 15;70(2):218-23
references.pmid: 1626510
references.citation: Circulation. 1998 Oct 13;98(15):1534-40
references.pmid: 9769307
references.citation: J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2009 Mar;24(2):105-12
references.pmid: 18987964
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2006 Aug;79(944):644-51
references.pmid: 16641414
references.citation: JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Oct;4(10):1133-9
references.pmid: 22017940