In plain language
In a randomised cath lab study, placing a shielding drape on the patient was associated with a 50% lower median dose to interventional cardiologists and 31% lower maximum scatter dose. These are dosimeter readings, not health outcomes.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Randomized trial
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists, Patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
The median dose received by the interventional cardiologist was 50% lower when a shielding drape was placed on the patient.
Key figures: 50% lower; p<0.001
The median maximum scatter radiation dose was 31% lower in the shielding drape group.
Key figures: 31% lower; p<0.001
The randomised groups did not differ significantly in procedural control parameters such as fluoroscopy time, kerma-area product and cine images, supporting comparability.
Limits to keep in mind
Only the abstract was available; sample size, country, drape type and dosimeter placement are not reported. Outcomes are dosimeter readings rather than health effects, and only the cardiologist's dose is described.
Related research summaries
- Extended Protective Shield Under Table to Reduce Operator Radiation Dose in Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: The EXTRA-RAD Study (2019, Randomized trial)
- Determinants of operator and patient radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization: Insights from the RadiCure (RADIation reduction during cardiac catheterization using real-timE monitoring) trial (2015, Randomized trial)
- Reduction of Operator Radiation Dose by a Pelvic Lead Shield During Cardiac Catheterization by Radial Access: Comparison With Femoral Access (2012, Randomized trial)
- Obesity as a determinant of radiation burden in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (2026, Narrative review)
- Radiation protection practices in diagnostic and interventional cardiology: Position paper from Portuguese Association of Interventional Cardiology (2025, Guideline or consensus statement)
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.