In plain language
In a 2008 to 2009 national survey of 171 U.S. cardiac catheterization facilities, patient kerma-area product was higher than in Europe despite similar fluoroscopy times. The authors suggest initial reference levels and conclude patient dose is not optimized.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Cross-sectional survey
- Who was studied
- Patients
- Size
- n = 171 facilities
- Where
- United States
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Possible preliminary U.S. reference levels for diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were proposed from the 75th percentile of national dose distributions.
Key figures: 75th percentile
Fluoroscopy times in the U.S. matched European studies, but kerma-area product was higher in the U.S.
The authors conclude patient dose in these procedures is not optimized in U.S. practice.
Data came from the 2008 to 2009 NEXT survey covering 171 facilities in 30 states.
Key figures: 171 facilities in 30 states
Limits to keep in mind
The abstract gives no numeric dose values, and the data come from a facility survey of patient dose metrics. Staff dose was not measured.
Related research summaries
- Two Central Nervous System Tumors in One Catheter Lab: Time to Rethink Radiation Protection (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- [The Multicenter Radiation Dose Survey for Catheter Ablation of Arrhythmia: Actual Conditions and Technique-specific Comparison after the DRLs 2020 Revision] (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- Establishing updated diagnostic reference levels for interventional radiology: a national Italian survey incorporating procedure complexity indices - Part II: interventional neuroradiology (2026, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Radiation dose reference levels for the most common image-guided interventional cardiac electrophysiology and pacing procedures: a French multicentre survey (2026, Cross-sectional survey)
- Investigation Of Reference Levels And Radiation Dose Associated With Abdominal EVAR (Endovascular Aneurysm Repair) Procedures Across Several European Centres (2017, Retrospective cohort study)
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.