This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McFadden, S L Articles by Shepherd, P H Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McFadden, S L Articles by Shepherd, P H

X-ray dose and associated risks from radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures

¹ Angiocardiographic Suite, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, ² Northern Ireland Medical Physics Agency, Forster Green Hospital, 110 Saintfield Road, Belfast BT8 4HD and ³ University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, County Antrim, BT37 OQB, UK

The objectives of this study were to quantify the ionizing radiation exposure to patient and operator during radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation and to estimate the risks associated with this exposure. The study consisted of 50 RF ablation procedures, all performed in the same electrophysiology laboratory. Occupational dose to two cardiologists who performed the procedures was measured using film badges and extremity thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs). Absorbed dose to the patients' skin was measured using TLDs. Dose–area product (DAP) was also measured. The effective dose to the cardiologists was less than 0.15 mSv per month. The mean equivalent dose to the cardiologists' left hand and forehead was 0.24 mSv and 0.05 mSv, respectively, per RF ablation procedure, which was more than twice the mean dose for the other cardiology procedures carried out in the centre. Yearly occupational dose to the cardiologists was much lower than the relevant statutory dose limits. The mean skin dose, fluoroscopy time and DAP to patients were 0.81 Gy, 67 min and 123 Gycm², respectively, with a maximum of 3.2 Gy, 164 minutes and 430 Gycm², respectively. Mean effective dose to patients was 17 mSv, from which the excess risk of developing fatal cancer is 0.1%. Six of the patients (12%) received a skin dose above the threshold dose for radiation skin injury (2 Gy), but no skin injuries were reported. Patient skin dose and DAP were closely correlated and this allows DAP to be used to monitor patient skin dose in real-time. DAP levels were locally adopted as diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) that provide an indication during a procedure that a patient is at risk of suffering deterministic skin injury.