In plain language
In 40 atrial septal defect closures, using 4 frames per second fluoroscopy instead of 7.5 showed a non-significant trend toward lower patient radiation dose without longer procedures or more complications. Staff dose was not measured.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Patients
- Size
- n = 40 procedures
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Radiation measures (DAP, weight-normalized DAP, radiation time, fluoro time) were lower with 4 fps than 7.5 fps, but the differences were not statistically significant.
Device closure succeeded in all but one case in the 4 fps group.
Key figures: 19 of 20 successful
The slower frame rate did not increase procedure time, cine time, fluoro time or complications.
Fluoroscopy and cineangiography contributed equally to total radiation exposure; cine use was identical between groups.
Limits to keep in mind
Small weight-matched comparison of 40 procedures with a historical control group at a single centre; only patient dose (DAP) was measured, not staff dose.
Related research summaries
- Fluoroscopy-minimization strategy for catheter ablation of Supraventricular Tachycardia by wOmen OPerators: the STOOP Multicentre Registry (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Two Central Nervous System Tumors in One Catheter Lab: Time to Rethink Radiation Protection (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- Radiation Awareness for EVAR in Hybrid Operating Room: An Instant Operator Risk Chart (2021, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Utilization of a Radiation Safety Time-Out Reduces Radiation Exposure During Electrophysiology Procedures (2019, Prospective cohort study)
- Completely nonfluoroscopic catheter ablation of left atrial arrhythmias and ventricular tachycardia (2018, Case report or series)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.