0328: Assessment of radiation exposure during cardiac device implantation: lessons learned from a multicenter registry

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Paul Bru ; ⁽¹⁾ ; ^{paul.bru@ch-larochelle.fr" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Antoine Dompnier⁽²⁾ ; Walid Amara⁽³⁾ ; Georges Haddad⁽⁴⁾ ; Gianina Galuscan⁽⁵⁾ ; Pascal Sagnol⁽⁶⁾ ; Mathieu Steinbach⁽⁷⁾ ; Christian Montagnier⁽⁸⁾ ; Jé ; rô ; me Taieb⁽⁹⁾ ; Julien Beguec⁽⁹⁾
• 刊名：Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Supplements
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：January 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：8
• 期：1
• 页码：78
• 全文大小：47 K

文摘

Few data exist about radiation exposure during implantation of cardiac electrical device. No dose reference levels (DRLs) were reported.

Purpose to define DRLs and to analyze factors related to an increased radiation dose delivered to patients and medical staff.

Methods the Raypace study is a multicenter, prospective observational registry. Using a national database, patient demographic, procedural and radiation data were collected. Fluoroscopy time (FT) and dose-area product (DAP) were registered. Physician/staff exposure was measured using 2 real-time personal dosimeters, one worn under the lead apron and the other one worn outside the apron. Statistical analysis used log-transformation of DAP, FT and DAP/FT ratio.

Results

A total of 657 procedures from 9 institutions were reviewed. Pacemaker (PM) and cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation was performed in 481 and 176 patients, respectively. A cardiac resynchronization device was implanted in 153 patients. Fluoroscopy time was similar for PM and ICD implantations. Median fluoroscopy time was 836, 117 and 101 second and median DAP was 1410, 150 and 129 cGy.cm² for biventricular, dual chamber and ventricular device implantation, respectively. LAO projection, in addition to AP projection, was used in 47% of the procedures. Five centers out of 9 used collimation. The median Hp (10) effective dose measured outside the lead apron was 4.6 µSv and 0.1 µSv under the lead apron.

Regarding CRT implant procedures, four systems out of 6 were responsible for an increased exposure (p<0.001). DRLs were 2600, 338 and 332 cGy.cm² for biventricular, dual chamber and ventricular device implantation, respectively.

Conclusions

DAP reduction was improved with the use of latest generators but needed customized settings. Biventricular device implantation was responsible for the highest radiation exposure. However, radiation exposure during those procedures have decreased as compared to previously reported values.