AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/jcitr.2018/004
*Corresponding Author: Matvei Ilya, Department of Radiology, Russia
Citation: Matvei Ilya, Electrophysiological procedures for the use of the RPC: without hindrance and negligible radiation, J. Stem cell Research and Therapeutics International. Doi: 10.31579/jcitr.2018/004
Copyright: © 2018 Matvei Ilya. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 05 September 2018 | Accepted: 17 September 2018 | Published: 24 September 2018
Keywords: radiation exposure; electrophysiological study; dose reduction; fluoroscopy
Background: Fluoroscopy is the main visualization technique for EP procedures. A radiation protection cabin (RPC) shielded with 2 mm lead-equivalent walls was tested as an alternative protection tool (Cathpax®, Lemer Pax).
Methods: To assess the scattered radiation to the operator inside the RPC an electronic personal dosimeter (EPD; Mk2, Thermo Electron) was placed at the neck level of the operator. A second EPD was located outside the RPC at 150 cm height from the floor, to record the presumable head radiation dose.
Results: Radiation doses were measured in a total of 138 consecutive patients (age 54±16 yrs, BMI 28±5 kg/m2 (18-45), 64% male) undergoing a variety of ablation procedures (SVT=75, AFL=32, AF=17, VT=14). Median fluoroscopy time was 39 min (7-140), the cumulative dose-area product (DAP) 4702 cGy.cm2 (493-65620). Doses outside the RPC showed a median of 135 µSv (1-4881). Doses inside the RPC were detected only at sensitivity threshold or background levels (mean 0.2SD0.7 µSv, median 0.0, range 0-4). The dose reduction to the operator was highest for AF ablations (354 vs 0.5 µSv, respectively; p<0.001). The total accumulated dose outside the RPC was 37883 µSv for all 138 procedures, whereas for the protected operator inside only 30 µSv.
Conclusions: There were highly concordant low dose values measured for the operator inside the RPC in comparison to high doses outside the RPC. The use of a RPC represents a major benefit over a lead apron and contributes to a significant dose reduction as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle).
Despite introduction of three-dimensional mapping and improved ablation technology, fluoroscopy will remain the main visualization technique for electrophysiological (EP) procedures. Furthermore, the complexity and the volume of invasive EP studies have substantially increased over the last decades. Especially ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a complex and prolonged procedure and associated with high radiation doses due to prolonged fluoroscopy times of more than 120 minutes depending on anatomic variations and operator experience [1,2]. High cumulative radiation exposure of the operator may result in potential stochastic and deterministic sequels [3-5]. Traditional radiation protection with lead aprons, goggles, and a thyroid shield leaves unprotected body parts such as arms, hands and head. Moreover, lead aprons are heavy and uncomfortable for the operator during prolonged procedures. In this study a radiation protection cabin (RPC) (Cathpax®, Lamer Pax, Carquefou, France) shielded with 2 mm lead-equivalent walls was tested as an alternative protection tool (Figure 1). The RPC is mobile, adjustable in height, and is prepared with specifically designed drapes to provide sterile patient access. The main objective was the comparison of radiation doses inside the RPC versus outside the RPC for different ablation procedures.
Methods
The X-ray system used for EP procedures was a biplane (83% of cases) or monoplane Philips Allura Xper FD10 system (Philips Healthcare; DA Best, The Netherlands). Pulsed low frame fluoroscopy (7.5 frames per second) and entrance dose limitation were used for air kerma reduction. The tubes of both systems have integrated dose-area product (DAP) meters indicating the cumulative DAP in cGy.cm2 of each interventional procedure. DAP is a surrogate marker for the total amount of radiation energy delivered to the patient, hence serving as a relative indication of the scatter-dose to the operator.
To assess the scattered radiation to the operator inside the RPC an electronic personal dosimeter (EPD Mk2, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) was placed at the back of the neck of the operator (Figure 1). A second EPD was located outside the RPC on the left-sided lateral wall of the cabin, at 150 cm height from the floor (Figure 2), to record the presumable head radiation dose. Dose display and storage of the EPD Mk2 ranges from 0 µSv to >16 Sv (auto ranging) at a resolution of 1 µSv up to 10 mSv.
All ablation procedures were performed with the RPC in use without compromising catheter manipulations of the operator. To gain access to both femoral veins and the right jugular vein all vessel punctures and the introduction of sheaths were performed before placement of the cabin.
The study compromised a total of 138 consecutive ablation procedures (supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) = 75, atrial flutter (AFL) = 32, atrial fibrillation (AF) = 17, ventricular tachycardia (VT) = 14. Mean age of the patients was 54±16 years, body mass index 28±5 kg/m2 (range 18-45), 64% men (Table 1). Median fluoroscopy time was 39 min (range 7-140). The externally applied radiation energy per minute fluoroscopy, as measured by the cumulative DAP was 4702 cGy.cm2 (range 493-65620). Doses outside the RPC showed a median of 135 µSv (range 1-4881). In 9/138 ablations (6.5%) doses were >1000 µSv/procedure, indicating a high exposure to the head (Figure 3). Doses inside the RPC were detected only at sensitivity threshold or background levels (mean 0.2SD0.7 µSv, median 0.0, range 0-4) (Figure 4). The dose reduction to the operator was highest for AF ablations when comparing values outside versus inside the cabin (354 versus0.5 µSv, respectively; p<0.001). The total accumulated dose outside the RPC was 37883 µSv for all 138 procedures, whereas for the protected operator inside only 30 µSv.
The present study demonstrates that the use of the RPC significantly reduces the radiation dose to the invasive electro physiologist as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle). The dose values measured for the operator inside the cabin were concordant low among all procedures. Our data are in line with the findings by Dragusin et al., [6] who demonstrated the usefulness of the RPC cabin compared to traditional radiation protection. In contrast to the cited study, we used a biplane X-ray system for the majority of ablation cases (>80%), whereas Dragusin et al., reported the use of a monoplane system in 70% of the procedures. As a major difference the French and Belgian investigators compared electrophysiological procedures with protection provided by classical means (lead apron) versus the RPC. Doses were measured with either thermoluminiscent or electronic dosimeters at multiple sites in protected and unprotected areas, whereas in our study all procedures were performed with the operator behind the RPC using only two EPDs, one inside the other outside the RPC. This setting was chosen in light of the results of the previously published study that found significant differences between conventional protection and the RPC particularly for radiation exposure to the head and neck of the operator. However, the different fluoroscopic systems, types of ablation and measurement techniques in both studies preclude a direct comparison of doses. Nevertheless, our findings confirm the significant reduction of radiation dose particularly to unprotected areas of the body that can be achieved using the RPC in a variety of more or less complex electrophysiological procedures.
Renaud [7] reported an annual dose exposure to the head of invasive cardiologist in the range of 20-30 mSv per year. Furthermore there are data indicating an increased risk of brain tumors in medical radiation workers because of absence of head protection [4]. In the present study the electronic dosimeter outside the cabin was placed in a way to record the presumable head radiation dose. The doses measured outside the cabin indicate that EP operators are exposed to relatively high radiation levels without shielding, particularly to the regions of the head and neck. Dose values inside the cabin were negligible low. Therefore, the dose reduction with the RPC, covering head and arms, certainly represents a benefit over the use of conventional radioprotection, such as lead aprons, a lead glass screen or lead eye glasses [8].
Over the last decade the number of AF ablations has dramatically increased and the trend is likely to continue in the future. AF ablation procedures are complex, prolonged and associated with larger radiation doses [1,2]. Lickfett and coworkers reported a fourfold increase in fluoroscopic screening time for AF ablations compared to AFL ablations and an eightfold increase compared to AVNRT ablation procedures [2]. The present study confirmed this finding and documented high radiation doses, particularly for complex AF ablations. Consequently, the dose reduction to the operator was highest for left atrial ablation procedures.
The work behind the RPC is much more comfortable compared to wearing a heavy lead apron, especially during prolonged procedures. Long-term orthopaedic problems are increasing in interventional cardiologists due to heavy lead aprons [9-11]. The use of the RPC on a routine basis might prevent such orthopaedic problems. However, the RPC has been designed mainly for electrophysiological procedures and until now there are no comparable protection systems available for coronary interventions or device implantations. In our experience, the RPC did not pose any hindrances to the operator with respect to catheter manipulation or even transseptal puncture for left atrial ablations. However, repositioning of the coronary sinus catheter from above was possible only form outside the RPC. Over the last years the regular use of the RPC has become routine in our EP laboratory independent of the type of the procedure. The consistent use of the RPC will ensure that individual dosimetry of high-volume operators will remain far below the upper recommended annual effective dose limit of 20mSv per year in our country.
The use of the RPC allowed the operators to perform a variety of catheter ablations without hindrance and negligible radiation. There were highly concordant low dose values measured inside the RPC over a clinically relevant wide spectrum of procedures. The doses measured outside the RPC confirm that electrophysiologists are exposed to relatively high dose levels, particularly during AF ablations. Use of a RPC represents a major benefit over a lead apron and contributes to a significant dose reduction as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle).
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
