Radiation risk reduction in cardiac electrophysiology through use of a gridless imaging technique.

AIMS: It has been previously demonstrated that use of appropriate frame rates coupled with minimal use of high-dose digital acquisition can limit radiation risk to patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic electrophysiology (EP). Imaging without the anti-scatter grid has been proposed as a means of achieving further radiation reduction. We evaluate application of a gridless imaging technique to deliver further reductions in radiation risk to both patients and personnel. METHODS AND RESULTS: Radiation and clinical data for EP procedures performed for 16 months from March 2012 were monitored. The period was divided into three phases: Phase 1 (March 2012-June 2012) provided a performance baseline (radiation output modelling and procedural risk adjustment calibration), Phase 2 (July 2012-September 2012) confirmation of performance with the grid, and Phase 3 (September 2012-June 2013) gridless imaging period. Statistical process control (SPC) charts were used to monitor for changes in radiation use and clinical outcomes (procedural success). Imaging without the grid halved the levels of radiation delivered in undertaking EP procedures. Although there was a perceptible impact on image quality with the grid removed. Review of the SPC chart monitoring procedural outcomes did not identify any discernable adverse impact on success rates. Selected use of the gridless technique is recommended with re-introduction of the grid in larger patients or during aspects of the procedure where image quality is important (e.g. transeptal punctures). CONCLUSION: Use of a gridless imaging technique can contribute to a significant reduction in radiation risk to both patients and operators during cardiac EP procedures.

A comparison of right ventricular non-apical defibrillator lead position with traditional right ventricular apical position: a single centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads have traditionally been placed at the right ventricular apex (RVA). An important minority of patients with an ICD may develop a future requirement for bradycardia support. Pacing from the RVA may be detrimental, promoting heart failure and mortality. Increasingly non-apical right ventricular (RVNA) lead positions have been suggested as an alternative pacing site. METHODS: A retrospective review of 512 patients who received an ICD at our institution between 1999 and 2011 was conducted. A comparison of lead performance characteristics was performed between RVNA sites and those at RVA. Data were collated from chart review and the pacing database. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period in the RVNA cohort was 40.4±25.9 months and in the RVA cohort it was 38±31.8 months (p=0.43). The RVNA cohort consisted of 144 leads and 368 leads in the RVA cohort. The groups had similar baseline clinical characteristics. No significant difference was detected in the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate ICD defibrillation (RVNA 10.4% vs. RVA 16.8%; p=0.07), inappropriate defibrillation (RVNA 7.6% vs. RVA 7.6%; p=0.99) or an unsuccessful defibrillation (RVNA 0% vs. RVA 1.7%; p=0.12). There was also no significant difference in the proportion of patients receiving successful anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) (RVNA 13.2% vs. RVA 17.4%; p=0.49) or failed ATP (RVNA 2.7% vs. RVA 4.1%; p=0.25). There was no significant difference in lead impedance (p=0.99), sensing (p=0.59) and pacing threshold (p=0.34). CONCLUSION: In this large retrospective study, RVNA ICD lead had similar stability and therapy efficacy compared to the traditional RVA position. This potentially has important implications for the suitability of RVNA as an alternative site for ICD leads.