Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures, ICRP PUBLICATION 139

At a glance

Type of study

Guideline or consensus statement

Who was studied

Interventional cardiologists, Interventional radiologists, Other physicians, Nurses, Radiologic technologists, Anesthesia staff, Medical physicists and radiation safety officers, Mixed lab staff

Topics

Eye lens and cataractsPersonal protective equipmentRoom shielding and protective devicesDosimetry and monitoringTraining and educationRegulation and policyPregnancy and reproductive healthSafety culture and complianceMusculoskeletal injury and ergonomics

Summary based on

a web page

What it found

• ICRP lowered the occupational eye lens equivalent dose limit. Without eye protection, staff with a medium or high workload could exceed it.

  Key figures: 150 mSv year-1 to 20 mSv year-1, averaged over 5 years, no single year exceeding 50 mSv

• RELID studies of volunteers found radiation-compatible posterior subcapsular lens opacities in many interventionists and in technicians or nurses. Rates in interventionists were four to five times those in unexposed controls.

  Key figures: approximately 40-50% of interventionists and 20-40% of technicians or nurses vs approximately 10% of controls

• Properly used ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shields are the most important head protection and should always be installed. They reduce head and neck dose depending on how well they are positioned.

  Key figures: factor of 2-10

• Rolling lead shields greatly reduce staff effective dose. Lower extremity doses can be high despite table curtains because of the gap between the curtain and the floor.

  Key figures: >90% reduction with rolling shields; annual lower extremity doses up to 110 mSv

• Two dosimeters, one under the apron and one over it at collar level, give the best estimate of effective dose. In a self-reported survey, dosimeter use was incomplete.

  Key figures: 76% always used dosimeters; 45% used two

Limits to keep in mind

This is consensus guidance that summarises other studies rather than presenting new data, and the source is the web-page abstract and executive summary only. Cited figures, such as the RELID volunteer samples and the self-reported ISEMIR dosimeter survey, carry the limitations of their original studies.

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)
• SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS Expert Consensus Statement on Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
• SIR-CIRSE Joint Guideline on Occupational Radiation Protection (2010, Guideline or consensus statement)
• AST Standards for Ionizing Radiation Exposure (Guideline or consensus statement)