The effect of an ultra‐low frame rate and antiscatter grid‐less radiation protocol for cardiac device implantations. Issue 12 (28th November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Attanasio, Philipp; Schreiber, Tobias; Parwani, Abdul; Lacour, Philipp; Pieske, Burkert; Haverkamp, Wilhelm; Blaschke, Florian; Huemer, Martin
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 40:Issue 12(2017)
• Page Start: 1380
• Page End: 1383
• Publication Date: 2017-11-28
• Subjects: antiscatter grid -- CIED implantation -- frame rate reduction -- radiation dose; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.13229
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background and aims: Antiscatter grids improve image contrast by absorbing scattered x‐ray beams, although by removing the antiscatter grid patient dose can be reduced as more x‐ray beams reach the image receptor. Additionally, there is a trend toward ultra‐low frame rates for radiation dose reduction during various electrophysiology procedures. As for most cardiac device implantations (CIED) image quality demands are usually modest, the purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of an ultra‐low frame rate and scatter grid‐less radiation protocol. Methods/results: A total of 140 patients undergoing CIED implantation between 2014 and 2017 were included in the study. Seventy patients (50%) implanted after implementation of the antiscatter grid‐less and ultra‐low frame rate protocol were matched to controls before the dose‐reduction protocol was established. Forty patients (28.6%) had a one‐chamber pacemaker or one‐chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation/revision, 60 (42.9%) had a two‐chamber pacemaker or two‐chamber ICD implantation/revision, and 40 (28.6%) patients had a cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation/revision. Removing the antiscatter‐grid and lowering the frame rate led to a 73% reduction of the overall dose area product (1, 206 ± 2, 015 vs 324 ± 422 μGym, P < 0.001). Procedural duration (95 ± 51 minutes vs 82 ± 44 minutes, P = 0.053) and rate of complications were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of an ultra‐low frame rate and antiscatter grid‐less radiation protocol significantly reduced radiation dose for implantation of CIED and led to very low average patient doses, while procedural duration and complication rates did not increase.