P6551Evaluation of a new ultra low-dose radiation protocol during electrophysiological device implantation

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Eichenlaub ◽  
K Astheimer ◽  
C Restle ◽  
C Maring ◽  
T Blum ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new ultra low-dose radiation protocol on radiation doses, feasibility and safety during electrophysiological device implantation. Background Radiation is one of the main hazards during electrophysiological procedures. Shielding is especially difficult during device implantation and particularly implantation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy devices (CRT) is associated with high radiation doses. Methods From January 2005 to January 2019, 8612 patients underwent de novo device implantation at our University Heart Center. During 2018, we established a new ultra low-dose radiation protocol and compared 661 patients who were treated during 2017 utilizing the conventional low-dose protocol with 512 patients after the application of the new program (11.5% one-chamber devices, 68.5% two-chamber devices and 19.9% CRT). Results After establishment of the radiation reduction protocol, dose area products could be reduced by 62% and the effective doses by 59% (113 (47–292) vs. 43 (14–130) cGycm2, p<0.0001 and 0.25 (0.11–0.63) vs. 0.10 (0.03–0.28) mSv, p<0.0001). These results could be achieved without prolonging procedure time, increasing complication and decreasing success rate. Male gender, higher BMI, longer procedure and fluoroscopy duration and the use of the conventional radiation protocol were statistically significant factors for the need of higher radiation doses in multivariate regression analysis. Clinical and procedural characteristics All (n=1173) Group pre (n=661) Group post (n=512) P Age, years 77 (69–82) 77 (69–82) 77 (69–83) 0.6 Male, n (%) 726 (62) 403 (61) 323 (63) 0.5 Body mass index, kg/m2 26.6 (24–29.8) 26.6 (24–29.8) 26.4 (24–29.4) 0.5 Procedure time, minutes 35 (25–50) 37 (26–50) 35 (25–54.5) 0.5 Fluoroscopy time, minutes 3.7 (2–7.8) 4 (2–7.8) 3.4 (1.9–7.7) 0.07 Dose area product, cGy cm2 80 (28–228) 113 (47–292) 43 (14–130) <0.0001 Effective dose, mSv 0.18 (0.06–0.51) 0.25 (0.11–0.63) 0.1 (0.03–0.28) <0.0001 Complications, n (%) 11 (0.9) 7 (1.1) 4 (0.8) 0.8 Conclusions Radiation exposure during electrophysiological device implantation has been continuously reduced over the last years. By establishing a new ultra low-dose radiation protocol, we could further decrease the radiation dose significantly and reach the lowest radiation values published so far. This protocol can easily be implemented in the workflow of other hospitals and should become standard during implantation procedures.

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A63.1-A63
Author(s):  
L Deloch ◽  
A Derer ◽  
AJ Hueber ◽  
R Fietkau ◽  
B Frey ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Srikanth Nayak ◽  
Arivudai Nambi ◽  
Sathish Kumar ◽  
P Hariprakash ◽  
Pradeep Yuvaraj ◽  
...  

AbstractNumerous studies have documented the adverse effects of high-dose radiation on hearing in patients. On the other hand, radiographers are exposed to a low dose of ionizing radiation, and the effect of a low dose of radiation on hearing is quite abstruse. Therefore, the present systematic review aimed to elucidate the effect of low-dose ionizing radiation on hearing. Two authors independently carried out a comprehensive data search in three electronic databases, including PUBMED/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. Eligible articles were independently assessed for quality by two authors. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used assess quality of the included studies. Two articles met the low-dose radiation exposure criteria given by Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) guidelines. Both studies observed the behavioral symptoms, pure-tone hearing sensitivity at the standard, extended high frequencies, and the middle ear functioning in low-dose radiation-exposed individuals and compared with age and gender-matched controls. One study assessed the cochlear function using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). Both studies reported that behavioral symptoms of auditory dysfunction and hearing thresholds at extended high frequencies were higher in radiation-exposed individuals than in the controls. The current systematic review concludes that the low-dose ionizing radiation may affect the hearing adversely. Nevertheless, further studies with robust research design are required to explicate the cause and effect relationship between the occupational low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and hearing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seon-Chil Kim ◽  
Jun Sik Son

AbstractNatural and medical radiation are the most frequent sources of daily low-dose radiation exposure for the general public, but these radiation levels are generally acceptable. Among various occupations, aviation crew members and medical workers are exposed to high levels of radiation from scattered rays. This study focused on developing clothing for shielding aviation crew members from natural radiation during air travel. Materials were selected considering their radiation-shielding properties. A tungsten double-layered composite yarn and a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fiber fabric containing BaSO4 were manufactured. The characteristics and shielding performances of the products were analyzed. Prototypes of a protective scarf (for shielding the thyroid gland) and apron (for shielding the torso) for flight attendants were produced. A lightweight fabric was produced that neither restricts the movement of the wearer nor causes them skin discomfort. The shielding performances of the tungsten composite and PET fiber fabrics containing BaSO4 were 0.018 mmPb and 0.03 mmPb, respectively, demonstrating low-dose shielding that may be useful for protecting aviation crew members from scattered rays. The characteristics of the developed fibers are comparable to those of materials used in clothing production; therefore, low-dose radiation-shielding clothing could be manufactured for use in aviation, medical, and other industries.


2005 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd D. Tillmanns ◽  
Scott A. Kamelle ◽  
Suresh Guruswamy ◽  
Natalie S. Gould ◽  
Teresa L. Rutledge ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document