Dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming significantly reduces patient and operating staff radiation during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Abstract

Objective: Fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is a complex procedure that generates high radiation doses. Magnification aids in vessel cannulation but increases radiation. The aim of the study was to compare radiation doses to patients and operating room staff from two fluoroscopy techniques, standard magnification vs dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming during F/B-EVAR.

Methods: An observational, prospective, single-center study of F/B-EVAR procedures using Philips Allura XperFD20 equipment (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) was performed during a 42-month period. Intravascular ultrasound, three-dimensional fusion, and extreme collimation were used in all procedures. Intraoperative live-image processing was performed with two imaging systems: standard magnification in 123 patients (81%) and dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming in 28 patients (18%). In the latter, the live "processed" zoomed images are displayed on examination displays and live images are displayed on reference displays. The reference air kerma was collected for each case and represents patient dose. Operating staff personal dosimetry was collected using the DoseAware system (Philips Healthcare). Patient and staff radiation doses were compared using nonparametric tests.

Results: Mean age was 71.6 ± 11.4 years. The median body mass index was 27 kg/m2 (interquartile range [IQR], 24.4-30.6 kg/m2) and was the same for both groups. Procedures performed with dual fluoroscopy with digital zooming demonstrated significantly lower median patient (1382 mGy [IQR, 999-2045 mGy] vs 2458 mGy [IQR, 1706-3767 mGy]; P < .01) and primary operator radiation doses (101 μSv [IQR, 34-235 μSv] vs 266 μSv [IQR, 104-583 μSv]; P < .01) compared with standard magnification. Similar significantly reduced radiation doses were recorded for first assistant, scrub nurse, and anesthesia staff in procedures performed with dual fluoroscopy. According to device design, procedures performed with four-fenestration/branch devices generated higher operator radiation doses (262 μSv [IQR, 116.5-572 μSv] vs 171 μSv [IQR, 44-325 μSv]; P < .01) compared with procedures with three or fewer fenestration/branches. Among the most complex design (four-vessel), operator radiation dose was significantly lower with digital zooming compared with standard magnification (128.5 μSv [IQR, 70.5-296 μSv] vs 309 μSv [IQR, 150-611 μSv]; P = .01).

Conclusions: Current radiation doses to patients and operating personnel are within acceptable limits; however, dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming results in dramatically lower radiation doses compared with the standard image processing with dose-dependent magnification. Operator radiation doses were reduced in half during procedures performed with more complex device designs when digital zooming was used.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266719.

Keywords: Dual fluoroscopy; Fenestrated-branched EVAR; Live-image digital zooming; Radiation safety; Standard electronic magnification.

Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.