Abstract
Radiation exposure remains a significant concern for ASD device closure. In an effort to reduce radiation exposure, the default fluoroscopy frame rate in our Siemens biplane pediatric catheterization laboratory was reduced to 4 fps in November 2013 from an earlier 7.5 fps fluoro rate. This study aims to evaluate the components contributing to total radiation exposure and compare the procedural success and radiation exposure during ASD device closure using 4 versus 7.5 fps fluoroscopy rates. Twenty ASD device closures performed using 4 fps fluoro rate were weight-matched to 20 ASD closure procedures using 7.5 fps fluoro rate. Baseline characteristics, procedure times and case times were similar in the two groups. Device closure was successful in all but one case in the 4 fps group. The dose area product (DAP), normalized DAP to body weight, total radiation time and fluoro time were lower in the 4 fps group but not statistically different than the 7.5 fps. The number of cine images and cine times were identical in both groups. Fluoroscopy and cineangiography contributed equally to radiation exposure. Fluoroscopy at 4 fps can be safe and effective for ASD device closure in children and adults. There was no increase in procedure time, cine time, fluoro time or complications at this slow fluoro rate. There was a trend toward decreased radiation exposure as measured by indexed DAP although not statistically significant in this small study. Further study with multiple operators using 4 fps fluoroscopy for simple interventional procedures is recommended.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwal S, Parashar A, Ellis SG, Heupler FA Jr, Lau E, Tuzcu EM et al (2014) Measures to reduce radiation in a modern cardiac catheterization laboratory. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 7(4):447–455
Andreassi MG, Ait-Ali L, Botto N, Manfredi S, Mottola G, Picano E (2006) Cardiac catheterization and long-term chromosomal damage in children with congenital heart disease. Eur Heart J 27(22):2703–2708
Bashore TM, Balter S, Barac A, Byrne JG, Cavendish JJ, Chambers CE et al (2012) 2012 American college of cardiology foundation/society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions expert consensus document on cardiac catheterization laboratory standards update: a report of the american college of cardiology foundation task force on expert consensus documents developed in collaboration with the society of thoracic surgeons and society for vascular medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(24):2221–2305
Berger F, Vogel M, Alexi-Meskishvili V, Lange PE (1999) Comparison of results and complications of surgical and amplatzer device closure of atrial septal defects. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 118(4):674–680 (discussion 678–80)
Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W, Brent RL, American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Radiology (2007) Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 120(3):677–682
Chida K, Ohno T, Kakizaki S, Takegawa M, Yuuki H, Nakada M et al (2010) Radiation dose to the pediatric cardiac catheterization and intervention patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(5):1175–1179
Everett AD, Jennings J, Sibinga E, Owada C, Lim DS, Cheatham J et al (2009) Community use of the amplatzer atrial septal defect occluder: results of the multicenter MAGIC atrial septal defect study. Pediatr Cardiol 30(3):240–247
Glatz AC, Patel A, Zhu X, Dori Y, Hanna BD, Gillespie MJ et al (2014) Patient radiation exposure in a modern, large-volume, pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory. Pediatr Cardiol 35(5):870–878
Jenkins KJ, Beekman Iii RH, Bergersen LJ, Everett AD, Forbes TJ, Franklin RC et al (2008) Databases for assessing the outcomes of the treatment of patients with congenital and paediatric cardiac disease–the perspective of cardiology. Cardiol Young 18(Suppl 2):116–123
Justino H (2006) The ALARA concept in pediatric cardiac catheterization: techniques and tactics for managing radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol 36(Suppl 2):146–153
Kotre CJ, Charlton S, Robson KJ, Birch IP, Willis SP, Thornley M (2004) Application of low dose rate pulsed fluoroscopy in cardiac pacing and electrophysiology: patient dose and image quality implications. Br J Radiol 77(919):597–599
Verghese GR, McElhinney DB, Strauss KJ, Bergersen L (2012) Characterization of radiation exposure and effect of a radiation monitoring policy in a large volume pediatric cardiac catheterization lab. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 79(2):294–301
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hiremath, G., Meadows, J. & Moore, P. How Slow Can We Go? 4 Frames Per Second (fps) Versus 7.5 fps Fluoroscopy for Atrial Septal Defects (ASDs) Device Closure. Pediatr Cardiol 36, 1057–1061 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-015-1122-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-015-1122-8