Results from a real-time dosimetry study during left atrial ablations performed with ultra-low dose radiation settings

This study is an observational single-center study including 201 patients that underwent left atrial catheter ablation (radiofrequency or cryoballon) due to atrial fibrillation. All patients were consecutively enrolled at the Charité University Hospital, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany. All patients were treated by the same two senior electrophysiologists using the same Siemens Artis dBc systems (Siemens Healthcare AG, Erlangen, Germany).

Demographic parameters, including body mass index (BMI), age, gender, and comorbidities were documented. Relevant procedural parameters for this study included total procedure time, fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose (measured as DAP), as well as acute procedural success and major periprocedural complications.

Emphasis was put on general “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) measurements, which the authors previously described [24]. These included avoiding magnification and unnecessary fluoroscopy/cine loops, maximal collimation, preferring anteroposterior (AP) and right anterior oblique (RAO) views over steep left anterior oblique (LAO) angulation, and minimizing the distance between patient and detector.

Standard shielding included the use of thyroid and body aprons with 0.5-Pb equivalent. As shown in Fig. 1, table-suspended lead curtains and transparent, ceiling-suspended plastic shields were positioned in an overlapping configuration to ensure maximum protection against scattered radiation. Also, radiation-absorbing shields were placed on the patient.

Furthermore, an ultra-low-dose protocol was uniformly used for all ablation procedures. This consists of the use of a low frame rate (two frames per second, FPS), maximum copper filtration, low detector entrance dose (8 nGy/pulse for fluoroscopy), and short pulse width (4 ms). As previously described, the antiscatter grid was not used in any cases in order to further minimize radiation exposure [1]. For left atrial angiography, short (3-s) cine loops with 7.5 FPS were used during fast left ventricular pacing (200 bpm) via the ablation catheter. The pictures were recorded in biplane mode in RAO 30° or LAO 30° view. No preprocedural imaging was performed.

Two parameters aiming to quantify radiation burden were obtained for each procedure. To evaluate dose to the patient, DAP (cGy ∙ cm²) was automatically measured by an ionization chamber. Measurement of DAP is routinely used to compare radiation burden of the patient and correlates well with skin dose [18].

Additionally, electronic dosimetry badges (RaySafe i3, Unfors, Hopkinton, MA, USA) were mounted outside the lead apron at the left side of the chest to measure the operator’s dose (µSv) for each procedure. Both operators were blinded to the measured doses.

This dosimeter is able to measure radiation every second and has high sensitivity (<30 µSv/h). RaySafe dosimeters also have good reproducibility [14] and have already been successfully used in neuroradiological [22], orthopaedic [15, 25], and peripheral endovascular procedures [16].

The RaySafe badges were collected and analyzed every week with DoseViewer software in order to prevent loss of sensitivity. For the last 51 (25%) procedures, radiation burden was analyzed for three different segments of the ablation procedure to assess the sequences with the highest radiation burden.

The procedures were divided into three parts as follows (see Fig. 2):

After exclusion of intracardiac thrombi by transesophageal echocardiography, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) or PVI plus further left atrial substrate modification or PVI plus ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) were performed under conscious sedation with midazolam and propofol. A diagnostic 10-poled steerable electrophysiology catheter (Inquiry, St Jude Medical, Saint Paul, MN, USA) was placed in the CS. Double transseptal puncture was performed in all cases and two catheters were introduced via two long left atrial sheaths (Swartz Braided SL0 Curve 8.5 F, St. Jude Medical, Saint Paul, MN, USA, and Agilis Nxt Small Curl 8.5F, Abbott, MN, USA):

After electroanatomical reconstruction of the left atrium, catheter ablation was performed guided by ablation index (AI) with irrigated radiofrequency energy at a power of 20–25 W at the posterior left atrial wall (target AI, 400) and 30–35 W at all other sites (target AI, 550).

This single-center study demonstrated that, with the use of an ultra-low-dose program and optimized shielding, operator doses can be kept at very low levels during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. The operator’s exposure was highest during left atrial angiography, making shielding and further dose reduction particularly valuable assets at this moment in the procedure. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis of the operator’s exposure with the use of ultra-low-dose programs for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

Scant data exist on personal dosimetry regarding atrial fibrillation ablation. A 2019 study reported mean values of 3 µSv with a mean DAP of 429.6 cGy ∙ cm² [10]. Those results were achieved by using a frame rate of 4 FPS. By using a lower frame rate of 2 FPS, the authors were able to achieve lower average doses while maintaining a low rate of complications with a reasonable procedural time. Reducing the frame rate is arguably one of the simplest and most effective ways to lower radiation burden, given that the relationship between dose and frame rate is linear. Despite this fact, only 50% of European ablation centers use a frame rate of less than 6 FPS for electrophysiology (EP) procedures [9]. The reason for this might be that a considerable number of EP labs use settings also used in coronary interventions. However, the demand for image quality in EP studies is usually far more modest, even in complex procedures. Therefore, the authors advise contacting the X‑ray system’s manufacturer to establish a low-dose radiation setup tailored to the operators’ requirements.

Since scattered radiation emitted from the patient’s body is the main source of the operator’s radiation burden, methods to absorb scattered radiation have been tested: sterile radiation-absorbing drapes placed around the puncture site can reduce the operator’s radiation exposure by more than half [12]. Mobile full-body protection systems can provide protection against scattered radiation, except for the arms, and can reduce radiation to the operator close to background radiation values [8]. High costs, limited availability, and structural preconditions have hindered their widespread use.

Despite various efforts to minimize operator radiation, interventional cardiologists in most centers are still subjected to a relevant amount of radiation throughout their career, with an annual estimated dose of 5 mSv [13]. Reducing radiation burden minimizes the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation, some of which include cancer, inherited diseases, and the formation of cataracts [21]. Figure 4 shows previously published radiation exposure for different diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, as well annual background radiation and radiation during an intercontinental flight.

Knowledge of pulmonary vein anatomy and its variations (common ostia, accessory pulmonary vein, pulmonary vein fusion) is a key factor for a safe and efficient ablation procedure. This information is most frequently obtained by intraprocedural angiography. Preprocedural computed tomograhy left atrial angiography might be helpful to avoid intraprocedural angiography and thereby reduce operator X‑ray exposure. However, this method is associated with a higher radiation burden to the patient [4, 17]. The authors suggest implementing the following measures to ensure low radiation burden:

The feasibility and safety of numerous fluoroless approaches for catheter-based pulmonary vein ablation and LA visualization have been demonstrated in smaller studies [7]. These include magnetic resonance imaging-guided ablation procedures [26], as well as intracardiac echocardiography [11] and transesophageal echocardiography [20] without any subsequent LA angiography. However, limited experience and availability, high costs, and possible complications have hindered more widespread use.