In plain language
In two paediatric interventional cardiologists using a biplane system, eye lens dose was about 4-5 mSv per year and tracked closely with the over-apron dosimeter (about 0.38 of it), when the ceiling shield was rarely used.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists
- Size
- n = 222 procedures
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Annual eye lens doses measured on goggles for the two paediatric cardiologists were about 4-5 mSv.
Key figures: 4.13±0.93 and 4.98±1.28 mSv per year
Goggle (eye) dose correlated strongly with dose measured over the apron, at roughly 0.38 of the apron dose.
Key figures: R2=0.89, ratio 0.38
Eye dose correlated only moderately with patient dose (kerma-area product).
Key figures: R2=0.40, ratio 1.79 μSv Gy-1 cm-2
Per-procedure doses were about 102 μSv over the apron and 40 μSv on goggles.
Key figures: 102±16 μSv apron; 40±9 μSv goggles
The ceiling-suspended shield was often not used during procedures.
Limits to keep in mind
Only two cardiologists at a single facility over one year, with frequent non-use of the ceiling shield, so the apron-to-eye ratio may not apply where shielding is used. Eye dose was estimated by dosimeters on goggles rather than directly at the lens.
Related research summaries
- Recording interventionalists' occupational dose by clinical procedure: a novel approach to radiation safety (2026, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Dosimetry During Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Of Chronic Total Occlusions (2018, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Patient And Staff Doses In Paediatric Interventional Cardiology Derived From Experimental Measurements With Phantoms (2015, Phantom or simulation study)
- Radiation protection practices in diagnostic and interventional cardiology: Position paper from Portuguese Association of Interventional Cardiology (2025, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
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.