Published in

Wiley Open Access, Journal of the American Heart Association, 11(7), 2018

DOI: 10.1161/jaha.117.008233

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

X‐Ray Exposure in Cardiac Electrophysiology: A Retrospective Analysis in 8150 Patients Over 7 Years of Activity in a Modern, Large‐Volume Laboratory

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background Only a few studies have systematically evaluated fluoroscopy data of electrophysiological and device implantation procedures. Aims of this study were to quantify ionizing radiation exposure for electrophysiological/device implantation procedures in a large series of patients and to analyze the x‐ray exposure trend over years and radiation exposure in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation considering different technical aspects. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective analysis of all electrophysiological/device implantation procedures performed during the past 7 years in a modern, large‐volume laboratory. We reported complete fluoroscopy data on 8150 electrophysiological/device implantation procedures (6095 electrophysiological and 2055 device implantation procedures); for each type of procedure, effective dose and lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence and mortality were calculated. Over the 7‐year period, we observed a significant trend reduction in fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and effective dose for all electrophysiological procedures ( P <0.001) and a not statistically significant trend reduction for device implantation procedures. Analyzing 2416 atrial fibrillation ablations, we observed a significant variability of fluoroscopy time, dose area product and effective dose among 7 different experienced operators ( P <0.0001) and a significant reduction of fluoroscopy use over time ( P <0.0001) for all of them. Considering atrial fibrillation ablation techniques, fluoroscopy time was not different ( P = 0.74) for radiofrequency catheter ablation in comparison with cryoablation, though cryoablation was still associated with higher dose area product and effective dose values ( P <0.001). Conclusions Electrophysiological procedures involve a nonnegligible x‐ray use, leading to an increased risk of malignancy. Awareness of radiation‐related risk, together with technological advances, can successfully optimize fluoroscopy use.