Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Practical ways to reduce radiation dose for patients and staff during device implantations and electrophysiological procedures

Open access
Heidbuchel, Hein, Wittkampf, Fred H.M., Vano, Eliseo, Ernst, Sabine, Schilling, Richard, Picano, Eugenio, Mont, Lluis, ESC Scientific Document Group, Jais, Pierre, de Bono, Joseph, Piorkowski, Christopher, Saad, Eduardo, Femenia, Francisco·2014·EP Europace

Abstract

Despite the advent of non-fluoroscopic technology, fluoroscopy remains the cornerstone of imaging in most interventional electrophysiological procedures, from diagnostic studies over ablation interventions to device implantation. Moreover, many patients receive additional X-ray imaging, such as cardiac computed tomography and others. More and more complex procedures have the risk to increase the radiation exposure, both for the patients and the operators. The professional lifetime attributable excess cancer risk may be around 1 in 100 for the operators, the same as for a patient undergoing repetitive complex procedures. Moreover, recent reports have also hinted at an excess risk of brain tumours among interventional cardiologists. Apart from evaluating the need for and justifying the use of radiation to assist their procedures, physicians have to continuously explore ways to reduce the radiation exposure. After an introduction on how to quantify the radiation exposure and defining its current magnitude in electrophysiology compared with the other sources of radiation, this position paper wants to offer some very practical advice on how to reduce exposure to patients and staff. The text describes how customization of the X-ray system, workflow adaptations, and shielding measures can be implemented in the cath lab. The potential and the pitfalls of different non-fluoroscopic guiding technologies are discussed. Finally, we suggest further improvements that can be implemented by both the physicians and the industry in the future. We are confident that these suggestions are able to reduce patient and operator exposure by more than an order of magnitude, and therefore think that these recommendations are worth reading and implementing by any electrophysiological operator in the field.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/europace/eut409

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
Heidbuchel, H., Wittkampf, F. H. M., Vano, E., Ernst, S., Schilling, R., Picano, E., Mont, L., ESC Scientific Document Group, Jais, P., de Bono, J., Piorkowski, C., Saad, E., & Femenia, F.
Venue
EP Europace
Published
2014-05-02
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
946-964
ISSN
  • 1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2092
OpenAlex
W1988444321
Cited by
311
References
67
FWCI
18.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Practical ways to reduce radiation dose for patients and staff during device implantations and electrophysiological procedures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/europace/eut409
The paper
Heidbuchel, H., Wittkampf, F. H. M., Vano, E., Ernst, S., Schilling, R., Picano, E., Mont, L., ESC Scientific Document Group, Jais, P., de Bono, J., Piorkowski, C., Saad, E., & Femenia, F. (2014). Practical ways to reduce radiation dose for patients and staff during device implantations and electrophysiological procedures. EP Europace. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut409

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.