1. Evaluation of a new very low dose imaging protocol: feasibility and impact on X-ray dose levels in electrophysiology procedures
- Author
-
Felix Bourier, Marc Kottmaier, Gabriele Hessling, Tilko Reents, Amir Brkic, Marta Telishevska, Carsten Lennerz, Christian Grebmer, Verena Semmler, Sonia Ammar-Busch, Alessandra Buiatti, Isabel Deisenhofer, and Christof Kolb
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Time Factors ,Operative Time ,Dose reduction ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Coronary Angiography ,Radiation Dosage ,Radiography, Interventional ,Cardiac Catheters ,Imaging ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,X-ray ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Risk Factors ,Clinical Research ,Left atrial ,Physiology (medical) ,medicine ,Humans ,Fluoroscopy ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,Protocol (science) ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,X ray dose ,business.industry ,Low dose ,Arrhythmias, Cardiac ,Middle Aged ,Radiation Exposure ,Treatment Outcome ,Angiography ,Catheter Ablation ,Cineangiography ,Feasibility Studies ,Operative time ,Female ,Cardiac Electrophysiology ,Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,Nuclear medicine ,business - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2015