Key result
A European survey of electrophysiology centers found that only 50% used low frame rates (3-6 frames per second) for fluoroscopy, and radiation protection equipment was not routinely used.
Cross-Sectional
Yes
The survey highlights suboptimal adoption of radiation reduction strategies and non-fluoroscopic technologies in European electrophysiology practice.
Despite the advent of non-fluoroscopic technologies, fluoroscopy remains the cornerstone of imaging in most interventional electrophysiological procedures, from diagnostic studies to ablation interventions and device implantation. The purpose of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey was to provide an insight into regulatory policies and physicians' clinical practice when using fluoroscopy during ablation procedures and device implantation. The survey has shown that only 50% of the participating centres worked with low frame rates (3-6 frames per second) and that the left anterior oblique projection, with higher radiation exposure for the physician, is used for nearly every ablation target. Although three-dimensional imaging systems may reduce the radiation exposure, most centres never used these systems for standard ablation procedures and a trend is that non-fluoroscopy technologies are even less frequently used than in 2012, when the use of robotic systems was still rare. Even less costly equipment such as lead gloves, lead glass cabins, or radiation absorbing pads are still not routinely used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Estner et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional in Electrophysiological procedures. Fluoroscopy practices was evaluated on Physicians' clinical practice when using fluoroscopy. A European survey of electrophysiology centers found that only 50% used low frame rates (3-6 frames per second) for fluoroscopy, and radiation protection equipment was not routinely used.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: