In plain language
In this review of 24 studies, nurses in cardiovascular fluoroscopy generally received lower doses than physicians but could exceed the eye dose limit in some settings, and often did not wear lead glasses. Education and real-time dose feedback were linked to lower nurse doses.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Narrative review
- Who was studied
- Nurses, Interventional cardiologists, Interventional radiologists, Radiologic technologists, Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 24 studies
- Where
- Poland, United States, Japan, Serbia, Indonesia, Kenya, Sweden, Australia, Greece, Italy, Spain, Lithuania
- Topics
- Eye lens and cataractsPersonal protective equipmentRoom shielding and protective devicesDosimetry and monitoringDose reduction techniquesTraining and educationSafety culture and compliance
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
Physicians receive the highest doses, but nurses may exceed recommended limits in some circumstances.
Nurses often did not wear lead glasses even when doctors routinely did; thyroid shields were inconsistently worn.
At a collar dose of 0.27 mSv per case, nurses would exceed the 20 mSv annual eye limit after about 75 cases; one study estimated 39 mSv per year for scout nurses.
Key figures: 0.27 mSv per case; 75 cases; 39 mSv/year
Lead glasses reduced measured eye dose by about 60% in a clinical interventional cardiology setting.
Key figures: 7.9 ± 3.3 mSv vs 3.1 ± 1.3 mSv/6 months; ~60%
Practical education of nurses lowered annual effective dose, and real-time dose feedback lowered staff dose rates.
Key figures: 1.33 to 0.47 mSv; 42.79 vs 19.81 μSv/min (P < 0.05)
Limits to keep in mind
Non-systematic narrative review of 24 mostly small, short-duration studies with poorly defined nurse roles, varied dosimeter types, placement and calibration, and inconsistent dose reporting, which prevents direct comparison or pooling.
Related research summaries
- 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 in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures, ICRP PUBLICATION 139 (2018, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Addressing the Occupational Risk of Radiation Exposure in the Evolving Field of Interventional Echocardiography (2024, Narrative review)
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.