In plain language
In a small single-centre study of two physicians performing cardiac catheterizations, non-lead 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent aprons blocked about 98.5% of chest scatter dose, similar to lead aprons, and were reported as more comfortable.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists
- Size
- n = 2 physicians
- Where
- Japan
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
The non-lead 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent apron combined a high shielding effect with good comfort.
Key figures: 98.5% shielding
The lead 0.35-mm apron shielded best but was rated least comfortable because it was heaviest.
Key figures: 98.9% shielding; comfort very poor
The non-lead 0.25-mm Pb-equivalent apron was most comfortable but had the lowest shielding effect.
Key figures: 96.1% shielding; comfort excellent
Shielding of the non-lead and lead 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent aprons was very similar.
Mean external dose tended to be lower in procedures with non-lead aprons, likely because an additional lead acrylic shield was used more often in those procedures.
Key figures: non-lead 142.6 or 123.9 μSv vs lead 166.4 or 209.2 μSv
Limits to keep in mind
Only two physicians in about 50+ cardiac catheterizations at one Japanese centre, with apron choice left to physicians, no statistical analysis, and comfort assessed informally by interview; use of an additional shield was uncontrolled.
Related research summaries
- Occupational Radiation Exposures in Interventional Radiology and the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- Ocular radiation protection efficiency and ergonomic performance of a novel Shoulder-Mounted radiation shield for interventional procedures (2026, Phantom or simulation study)
- A novel complete radiation protection system eliminates physician radiation exposure and leaded aprons (2013, Dosimetry measurement study)
- The occupational effects of interventional cardiology: results from the WIN for Safety survey (2012, 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.