Comparison of Radiation Exposure Among Interventional Echocardiographers, Interventional Cardiologists, and Sonographers During Percutaneous Structural Heart Interventions.

Importance: Transesophageal echocardiography during percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAO) and transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEER) require an interventional echocardiographer to stand near the radiation source and patient, the primary source of scatter radiation. Despite previous work demonstrating high radiation exposure for interventional cardiologists performing percutaneous coronary and structural heart interventions, similar data for interventional echocardiographers are lacking. Objective: To assess whether interventional echocardiographers are exposed to greater radiation doses than interventional cardiologists and sonographers during structural heart procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-center cross-sectional study, radiation doses were collected from interventional echocardiographers, interventional cardiologists, and sonographers at a quaternary care center during 30 sequential LAAO and 30 sequential TEER procedures from July 1, 2016, to January 31, 2018. Participants and study personnel were blinded to radiation doses through data analysis (January 1, 2020, to October 12, 2021). Exposures: Occupation defined as interventional echocardiographers, interventional cardiologists, and sonographers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measured personal dose equivalents per case were recorded using real-time radiation dosimeters. Results: A total of 60 (30 TEER and 30 LAAO) procedures were performed in 60 patients (mean [SD] age, 79 [8] years; 32 [53.3%] male) with a high cardiovascular risk factor burden. The median radiation dose per case was higher for interventional echocardiographers (10.6 µSv; IQR, 4.2-22.4 µSv) than for interventional cardiologists (2.1 µSv; IQR, 0.2-8.3 µSv; P < .001). During TEER, interventional echocardiographers received a median radiation dose of 10.5 µSv (IQR, 3.1-20.5 µSv), which was higher than the median radiation dose received by interventional cardiologists (0.9 µSv; IQR, 0.1-12.2 µSv; P < .001). During LAAO procedures, the median radiation dose was 10.6 µSv (IQR, 5.8-24.1 µSv) among interventional echocardiographers and 3.5 (IQR, 1.3-6.3 µSv) among interventional cardiologists (P < .001). Compared with interventional echocardiographers, sonographers exhibited low median radiation doses during both LAAO (0.2 µSv; IQR, 0.0-1.6 µSv; P < .001) and TEER (0.0 µSv; IQR, 0.0-0.1 µSv; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, interventional echocardiographers were exposed to higher radiation doses than interventional cardiologists during LAAO and TEER procedures, whereas sonographers demonstrated comparatively lower radiation doses. Higher radiation doses indicate a previously underappreciated occupational risk faced by interventional echocardiographers, which has implications for the rapidly expanding structural heart team.

Percutaneous coronary intervention using a combination of robotics and telecommunications by an operator in a separate physical location from the patient: an early exploration into the feasibility of telestenting (the REMOTE-PCI study).

AIMS: The present study explores the feasibility of telestenting, wherein a physician operator performs stenting on a patient in a separate physical location using a combination of robotics and telecommunications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing robotic stenting were eligible for inclusion. All manipulations of guidewires, balloons, and stents were performed robotically by a physician operator located in an isolated separate room outside the procedure room housing the patient. Communication between the operating physician and laboratory personnel was via telecommunication devices providing real-time audio and video connectivity. Among 20 patients who consented to participate, technical success, defined as successful advancement and retraction of guidewires, balloons, and stents by the robotic system without conversion to manual operation, was achieved in 19 of 22 lesions (86.4%). Procedural success, defined as <30% residual stenosis upon completion of the procedure in the absence of death or repeat revascularisation prior to hospital discharge, was achieved in 19 of 20 patients (95.0%). There were no deaths or repeat revascularisations prior to hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to explore the feasibility of telestenting. Additional studies are required to determine if future advancements in robotics will facilitate telestenting over greater geographic distances.

Cardiac perforation and lead dislodgement after implantation of a MR-conditional pacing lead: a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine if the rate of lead-related complications was increased with the Medtronic CapSureFix MRI™ SureScan™ 5086 MRI pacing lead (5086; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) compared to the previous generation of Medtronic CapSureFix Novus™ 5076 pacing lead (5076). BACKGROUND: The 5086 lead is a newly introduced active-fixation pacemaker lead designed to be used conditionally in a magnetic resonance (MR) scanner. This lead has specific design changes compared to the previous generation of 5076 pacing leads. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case control study of 65 consecutive patients implanted with two 5086 leads compared to 92 consecutive control patients implanted with two 5076 leads over a 14-month period at a high-volume tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: Pericarditis, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, or death within 30 days of implant were seen in eight patients from the 5086 cohort and two from the 5076 cohort (odds ratio 6.3, 95% confidence interval 1.3-30.8, P = 0.02). Lead dislodgement occurred in four of the 5086 patients and in none of the 5076 patients (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume center, the incidence of pericarditis, cardiac perforation, tamponade, death, and lead dislodgement was significantly higher with the MR-conditional Medtronic 5086 lead when compared to the previous generation Medtronic 5076 lead.