Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Aug 31;7(2):1044.
doi: 10.4022/jafib.1044. eCollection 2014 Aug-Sep.

Risks Related To Fluoroscopy Radiation Associated With Electrophysiology Procedures

Affiliations
Review

Risks Related To Fluoroscopy Radiation Associated With Electrophysiology Procedures

Eugenio Picano et al. J Atr Fibrillation. .

Abstract

The benefits of cardiac imaging are immense, and modern cardiac electrophysiology (EP) requires the extensive and versatile use of a variety of cardiac imaging and radiology-based techniques. In the cardiac electrophysiology lab, doses can range around a reference effective dose (ED) of 15 milliSievert corresponding to 750 chest x-rays for a cardiac radiofrequency ablation, ranging from less than 2 to > 60 mSv. The reference dose for a regular pacemaker or ICD implant is 4 mSv (range 1.4-17) and for a CRT implant is 22 mSv (range 2.2-95). Doses on the order of magnitude of 10-100 milliSievert (mSv) correspond to a low (albeit definite, not negligible) additional lifetime risk of fatal and non-fatal cancer from between 1 in 1000 (10 mSv) to 1 in 100 (100 mSv). The increasing use and complexity of cardiac electrophysiology techniques have not been matched by increasing awareness and knowledge by prescribers and practitioners. The protection of doctors is just as important as protection of patients. Most experienced (and most exposed) interventional cardiologists and electrophysiologists have an exposure per annum of around 5 mSv, two to three times higher than diagnostic radiologists, with a typical cumulative lifetime attributable risk on the order of magnitude of 1 cancer (fatal and non-fatal) per 100 exposed subjects. Operator dose per procedure correlates somewhat with the patient dose, but may be typically 1000 times lower depending upon the shielding employed (one unit of incidence scatter dose for the operator when 1000 units of incident dose are given to the patient). However, adequate radiation protection training and diligent protection can reduce this radiation exposure by 90%. The priority given to radioprotection in every cardiology department is an effective strategy for primary prevention of cancer, a strong indicator of the quality of the cardiology division, and the most effective shielding for enhancing the safety of patients, doctors, and staff.

Keywords: Electrophysiology; Radiation; Risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. The dose-effect relationship between radiation exposure and cancer risk over background levels. The solid line indicates the epidemiological evidence, which is conclusive for doses > 50 mSv, and recently expanded with the publication of two medical cohorts of over 800,000 children who underwent CT in Australia and UK. The cumulative dose of 100 mSv corresponds to a 1% extra-risk of cancer over baseline and can be reached after three serial EP procedures and two CTs.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. The risk model for the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee VII for exposure to low-level radiation predict that about one (red star) out of 100 people would likely develop solid cancer or leukemia from an exposure of 100 mSv above background. About 42 additional people (yellow circles) in the same group would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Roughly half of these cancers would result in death. This dose of 100 mSv is reached by 5% of patients in a single cardiac ablation or coronary angiography procedure. [Modified and adapted from ref 6: BEIR VII Health Risks from Exposure to Low levels of Ionizing Radiation, Phase 2. dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/beir_vii_final.pdf.]

References

    1. Picano Eugenio, Vañó Eliseo, Rehani Madan M, Cuocolo Alberto, Mont Lluis, Bodi Vicente, Bar Olivier, Maccia Carlo, Pierard Luc, Sicari Rosa, Plein Sven, Mahrholdt Heiko, Lancellotti Patrizio, Knuuti Juhani, Heidbuchel Hein, Di Mario Carlo, Badano Luigi P. The appropriate and justified use of medical radiation in cardiovascular imaging: a position document of the ESC Associations of Cardiovascular Imaging, Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Electrophysiology. Eur. Heart J. 2014 Mar;35 (10):665–72. - PubMed
    1. Correia Maria Joao, Hellies Arianna, Andreassi Maria Grazia, Ghelarducci Bruno, Picano Eugenio. Lack of radiological awareness among physicians working in a tertiary-care cardiological centre. Int. J. Cardiol. 2005 Sep 1;103 (3):307–11. - PubMed
    1. Kim Candice, Vasaiwala Samip, Haque Faizul, Pratap Kiran, Vidovich Mladen I. Radiation safety among cardiology fellows. Am. J. Cardiol. 2010 Jul 1;106 (1):125–8. - PubMed
    1. Picano Eugenio, Vano Eliseo. Radiation exposure as an occupational hazard. EuroIntervention. 2012 Oct;8 (6):649–53. - PubMed
    1. Heidbuchel Hein, Wittkampf Fred H M, Vano Eliseo, Ernst Sabine, Schilling Richard, Picano Eugenio, Mont Lluis, Jais Pierre, de Bono Joseph, Piorkowski Christopher, Saad Eduardo, Femenia Francisco. Practical ways to reduce radiation dose for patients and staff during device implantations and electrophysiological procedures. Europace. 2014 Jul;16 (7):946–64. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources