Radiation Safety and Electrophysiologists: Radiation Protection Status - Go for Zero Fluoroscopy European Heart Rhythm Association Registry.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze electrophysiologists' radiation-protective devices for occupational exposure across European countries. METHODS: Data reported herein were gathered from the international, multicenter prospective Go for Zero Fluoroscopy registry performed in years 2018-2019. The registry encompassed 25 European electrophysiological centers from 14 countries and up to 5 operators from each center. RESULTS: The analysis included 95 operators (median age: 39 years, 85% of male, median training time: 5 years). The most frequently used X-ray protection tools (used by ≥80% of the group) were lead aprons, thyroid shields, screens below the table, glass in the laboratory, and least often (<7%) protective gloves and cabin. No statistically significant differences regarding the number of procedures performed monthly, electrophysiologists' experience and gender, and radiation exposure dose or radiation protection tools were observed, except lead thyroid shields and eyeglasses, which were more often used in case of fewer electrophysiological procedures performed (<20 procedures per month). Operators who were protected by >4 X-ray protection tools were exposed to lower radiation levels than those who were protected by ≤4 X-ray protection tools (median radiation exposure: 0.6 [0.2-1.1] vs. 0.2 [0.1-0.2] mSv per month, p < 0.0001; 1.1 [0.1-12.0] vs. 0.5 [0.1-1.1] mSv per year, p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Electrophysiologists' radiation-protective devices for occupational exposure are similar across European centers and in accordance with the applicable X-ray protection protocols, irrespective of the level of experience, number of monthly performed EP procedures, and gender.

Fluoroscopy usage in contemporary interventional electrophysiology: Insights from a European registry.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopy has been an essential part of every electrophysiological procedure since its inception. However, till now no clear standards regarding acceptable x-ray exposure nor recommendation how to achieve them have been proposed. HYPOTHESIS: Current norms and quality markers required for optimal clinical routine can be identified. METHODS: Centers participating in this Europe-wide multicenter, prospective registry were requested to provide characteristics of the center, operators, technical equipment as well as procedural settings of consecutive cases. RESULTS: Twenty-five centers (72% university clinics, with a mean volume of 526 ± 348 procedures yearly) from 14 European countries provided data on 1788 cases [9% diagnostic procedures (DP), 38% atrial fibrillation (AF) ablations, 44% other supraventricular (SVT) ablations, and 9% ventricular ablations (VT)] conducted by 95 operators (89% male, 41 ± 7 years old). Mean dose area product (DAP) and time was 304 ± 608 cGy*cm2 , 3.6 ± 4.8 minutes, 1937 ± 608 cGy*cm2 , 15.3 ± 15.5 minutes, 805 ± 1442 cGy*cm2 , 10.6 ± 10.7 minutes, and 1277 ± 1931 cGy*cm2 , 10.4 ± 12.3 minutes for DP, AF, SVT, and VT ablations, respectively. Seven percent of all procedures were conducted without any use of fluoroscopy. Procedures in the lower quartile of DAP were performed more frequently by female operators (OR 1.707, 95%CI 1.257-2.318, P = .001), in higher-volume center (OR 1.001 per one additional procedure, 95%CI 1.000-1.001, P = .002), with the use of 3D-mapping system (OR 2.622, 95%CI 2.053-3.347, P < .001) and monoplane x-ray system (OR 2.945, 95%CI 2.149-4.037, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Exposure to ionizing radiation varies widely in daily practice for all procedure. Significant opportunities for harmonization of exposure toward the lower range has been identified.