Supplementary Material for: Radiation Safety and Electrophysiologists: Radiation Protection Status – Go for Zero Fluoroscopy European Heart Rhythm Association Registry
datasetposted on 05.10.2021, 08:44 by Krzowski B., Gawałko M., Peller M., Lodziński P., Grabowski M., De Potter T., Fiedler L., Ernst S., Duncker D., Chudzik M., Garcia R., Russo V., Yakushev A., Kosiuk J., Balsam P.
Background: The purpose of this study was to analyze elec?trophysiologists’ radiation-protective devices for occupa?tional exposure across European countries. Methods: Data reported herein were gathered from the international, mul?ticenter prospective Go for Zero Fluoroscopy registry per?formed in years 2018–2019. The registry encompassed 25 European electrophysiological centers from 14 countries and up to 5 operators from each center. Results: The analysis included 95 operators (median age: 39 years, 85% of male, median training time: 5 years). The most frequently used X-ray protection tools (used by ≥80% of the group) were lead aprons, thyroid shields, screens below the table, glass in the laboratory, and least often (<7%) protective gloves and cab?in. No statistically significant differences regarding the number of procedures performed monthly, electrophysiologists’ experience and gender, and radiation exposure dose or radiation protection tools were observed, except lead thyroid shields and eyeglasses, which were more often used in case of fewer electrophysiological procedures performed (<20 procedures per month). Operators who were protected by >4 X-ray protection tools were exposed to lower radiation levels than those who were protected by ≤4 X-ray protection tools (median radiation exposure: 0.6 [0.2–1.1] vs. 0.2 [0.1– 0.2] mSv per month, p < 0.0001; 1.1 [0.1–12.0] vs. 0.5 [0.1–1.1] mSv per year, p < 0.0001), respectively. Conclusions: Electro?physiologists’ radiation-protective devices for occupational exposure are similar across European centers and in accor?dance with the applicable X-ray protection protocols, irre?spective of the level of experience, number of monthly per?formed EP procedures, and gender.