{"title":"使用RPC的电生理程序:无阻碍和可忽略的辐射","authors":"Matvei Ilya, V. Gleb","doi":"10.31579/jcitr.2018/004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Fluoroscopy is the main visualization technique for EP procedures. A radiation protection cabin (RPC) shielded with 2 mm lead-equivalent walls was tested as an alternative protection tool (Cathpax®, Lemer Pax). Methods: To assess the scattered radiation to the operator inside the RPC an electronic personal dosimeter (EPD; Mk2, Thermo Electron) was placed at the neck level of the operator. A second EPD was located outside the RPC at 150 cm height from the floor, to record the presumable head radiation dose. Results: Radiation doses were measured in a total of 138 consecutive patients (age 54±16 yrs, BMI 28±5 kg/m2 (18-45), 64% male) undergoing a variety of ablation procedures (SVT=75, AFL=32, AF=17, VT=14). Median fluoroscopy time was 39 min (7-140), the cumulative dose-area product (DAP) 4702 cGy.cm2 (493-65620). Doses outside the RPC showed a median of 135 µSv (1-4881). Doses inside the RPC were detected only at sensitivity threshold or background levels (mean 0.2SD0.7 µSv, median 0.0, range 0-4). The dose reduction to the operator was highest for AF ablations (354 vs 0.5 µSv, respectively; p<0.001). The total accumulated dose outside the RPC was 37883 µSv for all 138 procedures, whereas for the protected operator inside only 30 µSv. Conclusions: There were highly concordant low dose values measured for the operator inside the RPC in comparison to high doses outside the RPC. The use of a RPC represents a major benefit over a lead apron and contributes to a significant dose reduction as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle).","PeriodicalId":196675,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Imaging and Interventional Radiology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electrophysiological procedures for the use of the RPC: without hindrance and negligible radiation\",\"authors\":\"Matvei Ilya, V. Gleb\",\"doi\":\"10.31579/jcitr.2018/004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Fluoroscopy is the main visualization technique for EP procedures. A radiation protection cabin (RPC) shielded with 2 mm lead-equivalent walls was tested as an alternative protection tool (Cathpax®, Lemer Pax). Methods: To assess the scattered radiation to the operator inside the RPC an electronic personal dosimeter (EPD; Mk2, Thermo Electron) was placed at the neck level of the operator. A second EPD was located outside the RPC at 150 cm height from the floor, to record the presumable head radiation dose. Results: Radiation doses were measured in a total of 138 consecutive patients (age 54±16 yrs, BMI 28±5 kg/m2 (18-45), 64% male) undergoing a variety of ablation procedures (SVT=75, AFL=32, AF=17, VT=14). Median fluoroscopy time was 39 min (7-140), the cumulative dose-area product (DAP) 4702 cGy.cm2 (493-65620). Doses outside the RPC showed a median of 135 µSv (1-4881). Doses inside the RPC were detected only at sensitivity threshold or background levels (mean 0.2SD0.7 µSv, median 0.0, range 0-4). The dose reduction to the operator was highest for AF ablations (354 vs 0.5 µSv, respectively; p<0.001). The total accumulated dose outside the RPC was 37883 µSv for all 138 procedures, whereas for the protected operator inside only 30 µSv. Conclusions: There were highly concordant low dose values measured for the operator inside the RPC in comparison to high doses outside the RPC. The use of a RPC represents a major benefit over a lead apron and contributes to a significant dose reduction as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle).\",\"PeriodicalId\":196675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Imaging and Interventional Radiology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Imaging and Interventional Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31579/jcitr.2018/004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Imaging and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31579/jcitr.2018/004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Electrophysiological procedures for the use of the RPC: without hindrance and negligible radiation
Background: Fluoroscopy is the main visualization technique for EP procedures. A radiation protection cabin (RPC) shielded with 2 mm lead-equivalent walls was tested as an alternative protection tool (Cathpax®, Lemer Pax). Methods: To assess the scattered radiation to the operator inside the RPC an electronic personal dosimeter (EPD; Mk2, Thermo Electron) was placed at the neck level of the operator. A second EPD was located outside the RPC at 150 cm height from the floor, to record the presumable head radiation dose. Results: Radiation doses were measured in a total of 138 consecutive patients (age 54±16 yrs, BMI 28±5 kg/m2 (18-45), 64% male) undergoing a variety of ablation procedures (SVT=75, AFL=32, AF=17, VT=14). Median fluoroscopy time was 39 min (7-140), the cumulative dose-area product (DAP) 4702 cGy.cm2 (493-65620). Doses outside the RPC showed a median of 135 µSv (1-4881). Doses inside the RPC were detected only at sensitivity threshold or background levels (mean 0.2SD0.7 µSv, median 0.0, range 0-4). The dose reduction to the operator was highest for AF ablations (354 vs 0.5 µSv, respectively; p<0.001). The total accumulated dose outside the RPC was 37883 µSv for all 138 procedures, whereas for the protected operator inside only 30 µSv. Conclusions: There were highly concordant low dose values measured for the operator inside the RPC in comparison to high doses outside the RPC. The use of a RPC represents a major benefit over a lead apron and contributes to a significant dose reduction as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle).