European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on December 15, 2006
European Heart Journal 2007 28(2):183-189; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl420
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluation of a radiation protection cabin for invasive electrophysiological procedures
1 Cardiology–Electrophysiology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
2 Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque, University of Bordeaux-Pessac, France
Received 3 July 2006; revised 8 October 2006; accepted 16 November 2006; online publish-ahead-of-print 15 December 2006.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +32 16 34 42 48; fax: +32 16 34 42 40. E-mail address: hein.heidbuchel{at}uz.kuleuven.ac.be
Aims Complex invasive electrophysiological procedures may result in high cumulative operator radiation exposure. Classical protection with lead aprons results in discomfort while radioprotection is still incomplete. This study evaluated the usefulness of a radiation protection cabin (RPC) that completely surrounds the operator.
Methods and results The evaluation was performed independently in two electrophysiology laboratories (E1—Leuven, Belgium; E2—Bordeaux, France), comparing operator radiation exposure using the RPC vs. a 0.5 mm lead-equivalent apron (total of 135 procedures). E1 used thermoluminiscent dosimeters (TLDs) placed at 16 positions in and out of the RPC and nine positions in and out of the apron. E2 used more sensitive electronic personal dosimeters (EPD), placed at waist and neck. The sensitivity thresholds of the TLDs and EPDs were 10–20 µSv and 1–1.5 µSv, respectively. All procedures could be performed unimpeded with the RPC. Median TLD dose values outside protected areas were in the range of 57–452 µSv, whereas doses under the apron or inside the RPC were all at the background radiation level, irrespective of procedure and fluoroscopy duration and of radiation energy delivered. In addition, the RPC was protecting the entire body (except the hands), whereas lead apron protection is incomplete. Also with the more sensitive EPDs, the radiation dose within the RPC was at the sensitivity threshold/background level (1.3 ± 0.6 µSv). Again, radiation to the head was significantly lower within the RPC (1.9 ± 1.2 µSv) than with the apron (102 ± 23 µSv, P < 0.001).
Conclusion The use of the RPC allows performing catheter ablation procedures without compromising catheter manipulation, and with negligible radiation exposure for the operator.
Key Words: Radiofrequency catheter ablation • Radioprotection • Interventional cardiology
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Knecht, M. Hocini, M. Wright, N. Lellouche, M. D. O'Neill, S. Matsuo, I. Nault, V. S. Chauhan, K. J. Makati, M. Bevilacqua, et al. Left atrial linear lesions are required for successful treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation Eur. Heart J., October 1, 2008; 29(19): 2359 - 2366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Kirchhof, A. Auricchio, J. Bax, H. Crijns, J. Camm, H.-C. Diener, A. Goette, G. Hindricks, S. Hohnloser, L. Kappenberger, et al. Outcome parameters for trials in atrial fibrillation: executive summary: Recommendations from a consensus conference organized by the German Atrial Fibrillation Competence NETwork (AFNET) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Eur. Heart J., November 2, 2007; 28(22): 2803 - 2817. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Kirchhof, A. Auricchio, J. Bax, H. Crijns, J. Camm, H.-C. Diener, A. Goette, G. Hindricks, S. Hohnloser, L. Kappenberger, et al. Outcome parameters for trials in atrial fibrillation: Recommendations from a consensus conference organized by the German Atrial Fibrillation Competence NETwork and the European Heart Rhythm Association Europace, November 1, 2007; 9(11): 1006 - 1023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|