In plain language
In 758 Mayo Clinic radiology and cardiology staff, most annual doses were 0-5 mSv; physicians received different doses than nurses and technologists, and procedure volume mattered. Authors suggest lighter aprons might be possible, but this was not tested.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Interventional radiologists, Interventional cardiologists, Nurses, Radiologic technologists, Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 758 individuals (1,609 annual exposures)
- Where
- United States
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Most annual Hp(10) doses were low, between 0 and 5 mSv.
Key figures: 71.2% between 0-5 mSv
Clinicians' doses differed from other roles; nurses and technologists did not differ significantly from each other.
Key figures: P<.05
Role and procedure volume explained about a quarter of dose variation, with role having the larger effect.
Key figures: 24.4-27.8% of variation
Procedure volume affected dose more than hospital type.
Authors suggest exposures were low enough to potentially allow thinner aprons, which may reduce musculoskeletal risk.
Limits to keep in mind
Single-institution retrospective dosimetry records with median imputation for missing data; the model explained only about a quarter of dose variation. The apron-thickness suggestion was not directly tested.
Related research summaries
- 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)
- 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)
- Get Protected! Recommendations for Staff in IR (2021, 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.