4.6 Article

PAIDEIA: pacemaker and implanted cardioverter defibrillator management in radiation therapy-a survey by the Young Group of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO)

Journal

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
Volume 125, Issue 3, Pages 329-335

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-019-01099-5

Keywords

Cancer; Radiotherapy; Pacemaker and implanted cardioverter defibrillator; Italian survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction The management of patients bearing a cardiac implantable electronic device and needing a radiotherapy treatment is an important clinical scenario. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the level of awareness within the Italian Radiation Oncologist community on this topic. Materials and methods A survey was promoted by the Young Group of Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) with a questionnaire made up of 22 questions allowing for multiple answers, which was administered, both online and on paper version. It was addressed to Radiation Oncologists, AIRO members, participating in the National Congress held in 2015. Results A total of 113 questionnaires were collected back and analyzed (survey online: 50 respondents; paper version: 63). The answers showed a good level of awareness on the issue, but with a nonhomogeneous adherence to the different published guidelines (GL). There is a general low rate of referral for a preliminary cardiological evaluation in patients bearing PM/ICDs, in line with some published surveys; nevertheless, a focused attention to certain specific treatment factors and patient-centered point of view emerged. Conclusions A generally good awareness of this topic was shown but homogeneous application of GL was not observed, possibly due to the multiplicity of available GL. A prospective data collection could help to better clarify the shadows on this topics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available