In plain language
In diagnostic catheterizations performed by cardiology fellows, radial access involved longer fluoroscopy time and higher dose area product than femoral access, and dose did not fall with training year. Staff dose was not measured directly.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Trainees, Interventional cardiologists, Patients
- Size
- n = 343 procedures
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Radial access by fellows had longer fluoroscopy time than femoral access.
Key figures: 8.0 ± 6.97 min vs 4.25 ± 3.01 min; P<.001
Radial access had higher dose area product than femoral access.
Key figures: 10775 ± 6724 μGy/m² vs 7952 ± 4236 μGy/m²; P<.001
Radial procedures took longer overall.
Key figures: 38.31 ± 12.25 min vs 27 ± 17.56 min; P<.001
Dose area product did not improve with fellowship training year in either access group, although access time improved.
Differences persisted after adjustment for bypass grafts and additional imaging; contrast use did not differ.
Key figures: P=.12 for contrast
Limits to keep in mind
Single training program, retrospective, non-randomized comparison; only patient dose metrics (DAP, fluoroscopy time) were measured, not operator or staff dose.
Related research summaries
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
- Cardiology fellows-in-training are exposed to relatively high levels of radiation in the cath lab compared with staff interventional cardiologists, insights from the RECAP trial (2019, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Role of Experience, Leadership and Individual Protection in the Cath Lab, A Multicenter Questionnaire and Workshop on Radiation Safety (2015, Prospective cohort study)
- Implementation of a near-zero fluoroscopy approach in interventional electrophysiology: impact of operator experience (2018, Retrospective cohort study)
- Educational Effects of Radiation Reduction During Fluoroscopic Examination of the Adult Gastrointestinal Tract (2017, Retrospective cohort study)
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.