In plain language
In a US survey of 306 cath and electrophysiology (EP) lab physicians, nurses and technologists, 62% reported musculoskeletal pain; wearing lead over 4 hours daily was linked to orthopedic injury. Pregnant workers reported few accommodations. Self-reported uptake of a brief ergonomics video was high.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Cross-sectional survey
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists, Electrophysiologists, Nurses, Radiologic technologists, Other physicians, Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 306 survey respondents
- Where
- United States
- Topics
- Musculoskeletal injury and ergonomicsPersonal protective equipmentEye lens and cataractsCancer riskPregnancy and reproductive healthTraining and educationWomen in the fieldSafety culture and compliance
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
Wearing a lead apron more than 4 hours per day was independently associated with orthopedic injury, as was age over 50.
Key figures: aOR 2.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-4.39; P = 0.005 (lead >4 h/day); aOR 2.19; 95% CI 1.15-4.16; P = 0.02 (age >50)
Musculoskeletal pain was highly prevalent, with some requiring surgery.
Key figures: 62% with pain; 7.5% required surgery
Physicians had higher adjusted odds of self-reported cataract or malignancy than nonphysician staff.
Key figures: aOR 3.88; 95% CI 1.29-11.57; P = 0.02
Among those who had been pregnant, many reported work-worsened discomfort and limited workplace accommodations, and most wore lead during pregnancy.
Key figures: 41.5% worsened discomfort; 52.1% no opportunity to adjust load; 76% unable to reduce hours; 68.4% wore lead
Among follow-up respondents who recalled the video, most reported adopting the ergonomic techniques.
Key figures: 99 follow-up responses; 34.1% recalled video; 75.9% implemented techniques
Limits to keep in mind
Cross-sectional, self-reported survey with selection bias, no dose measurement, and an estimated low response rate (306 of about 4,200 surveyed; 99 follow-up responses). The video evaluation had no control group and very low follow-up, so effectiveness cannot be generalized.
Related research summaries
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
- Occupational Health Hazards in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Results of the 2023 SCAI Survey (2025, Cross-sectional survey)
- SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS Expert Consensus Statement on Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the full text 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.