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
Comment
. 2023 Aug 2;25(9):euad216.
doi: 10.1093/europace/euad216.

Occupational radiation exposure of electrophysiology staff with reproductive potential and during pregnancy: an EHRA survey

Raquel Adeliño  1   2 , Katarzyna Malaczynska-Rajpold  3 , Laura Perrotta  4 , Martin Manninger  5 , Philippe Vanduynhoven  6 , Martina Nesti  7 , Emilia-Violeta Goanță  8 , Victor Waldmann  9 , Nikola Pavlovic  10 , Michal M Farkowski  11 , Jose M Guerra  12   13   14 , Diego Penela  15 , Serge Boveda  2 , Julian K R Chun  16
Affiliations
Comment

Occupational radiation exposure of electrophysiology staff with reproductive potential and during pregnancy: an EHRA survey

Raquel Adeliño et al. Europace. .

Abstract

Aims: Electrophysiology (EP) is a growing field in cardiology, with an increasing involvement of young people. Nevertheless, concerns about radiation exposure and its impact on reproduction and pregnancy may discourage the choice of an EP career. The study is aimed at investigating the level of awareness and main sources of concern about the effects of radiation on reproductive potential and pregnancy, exploring the safety measures adopted in different EP labs, and verifying the adherence to the current guidelines.

Methods and results: An online survey was conducted using the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) infrastructure from April to June 2022. A total of 252 EP personnel (42% women) participated, from 50 countries and different professional roles. Most participants expressed concerns regarding the effects of radiation on reproductive capacity (67.1%) and offspring diseases (68.2%). Only 37.9% of participants were aware of the EHRA 2017 consensus document about occupational radiation exposure. Most participants (80.9%) considered that occupational radiation during pregnancy is not safe. EP female staff were not allowed to work in the EP lab during pregnancy in 48.1% of cases. Zero-fluoroscopy was the preferred choice to continue working in the EP lab during pregnancy.

Conclusion: EP staff, including both men and women, have concerns about the effects of radiation on reproductive capacity. Despite the recommendations issued by international bodies, implementation of the policies regarding pregnancy and occupational radiation exposure is heterogeneous. Zero-fluoroscopy is the preferred approach to ensure safety during pregnancy in the EP lab.

Keywords: EHRA survey; EP staff; Occupational health; Pregnancy; Radiation exposure; Radioprotection; Reproductive capacity; Young electrophysiologists.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

Figures

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
Main findings of the survey.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Bar graphic representing the number of participants per country.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Graphic representation of the answers to four general questions in the survey. Panels A and B represent the results to the question about the degree of concern about the effects of occupational radiation on the reproductive capacity and offspring, respectively. Panel C shows the results to a question that asked about the use of low-body radiation protector. Panel D represents the results of the question about the number of zero-fluoroscopy procedures per month.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Results from questions addressed to women who had been pregnant during their professional career. Graphic A shows the answers to the ‘Did you stay out of the EP lab?’ addressed to women who had been pregnant during their professional career. Graphic B shows the answers to the question ‘who restricted you from working in the EP lab during pregnancy?’ addressed to those women who declared having stayed out of the EP lab during pregnancy.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Results from questions addressed to women who had continued to work in the EP lab during pregnancy. Panel A shows the proportion of pregnant EP women who could participate in zero-fluoroscopy procedures. Panel B shows the results from the specific safety measures used by pregnant EP women who continued to work. Panel C represents the answers to the question ‘Do you think that all possible necessary measures were implemented to guarantee your safety and that of your child?’.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Results from questions addressed to women who had not been pregnant during their professional career.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment on

References

    1. The future of electrophysiology [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sep 4]. Available from: https://www.escardio.org/Journals/E-Journal-of-Cardiology-Practice/Volum... (4 September 2022).
    1. Yang L, Sun G, Chen X, Chen G, Yang S, Guo Pet al. Meta-analysis of zero or near-zero fluoroscopy use during ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. Am J Cardiol 2016;118:1511–8. - PubMed
    1. Kanitsoraphan C, Techorueangwiwat C, Rattanawong P, Kewcharoen J, Ayinapudi K, Bunch TJet al. Zero fluoroscopy approach versus fluoroscopy approach for cardiac arrhythmia ablations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2021;32:2761–76. - PubMed
    1. Dragusin O, Weerasooriya R, Jaïs P, Hocini M, Ector J, Takahashi Yet al. Evaluation of a radiation protection cabin for invasive electrophysiological procedures. Eur Heart J 2007;28:183–9. - PubMed
    1. Lewis SJ, Mehta LS, Douglas PS, Gulati M, Limacher MC, Poppas Aet al. Changes in the professional lives of cardiologists over 2 decades. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:452–62. - PubMed