In plain language
In one cath lab, three operators received higher radiation doses during pelvic, upper limb and below-the-knee endovascular procedures than during coronary angiography, with higher eye and hand doses in peripheral work. Patient body mass index (BMI) and fluoroscopy time also mattered.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists, Other physicians
- Size
- n = 284 procedures
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Pelvic endovascular procedures gave operators a higher effective dose than coronary angiography.
Key figures: 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7 to 3.0, p < 0.001)
Upper limb and below-the-knee procedures also gave higher operator effective dose than coronary angiography.
Key figures: 1.7-fold (95% CI: 1.3 to 2.1, p < 0.001); 1.4-fold (95% CI: 1.1 to 2.0, p = 0.023)
Procedure type, patient BMI and fluoroscopy time were independently associated with operator exposure.
Mean operator effective dose per procedure was low; eye doses were higher in peripheral than coronary procedures.
Key figures: E 2.2 ± 5.9 μSv; eye 19.1 ± 37.6 μSv
Hand doses were highest in pelvic procedures.
Key figures: mean hand dose 99.6 ± 196.0 μSv
Limits to keep in mind
Single-centre study of only 3 operators over 14 weeks; results may reflect individual technique and local equipment and shielding. Dose is a surrogate, not a health outcome.
Related research summaries
- Real-time evaluation of operator eye lens radiation dose in interventional radiology: Effects of protective shield position and X-ray beam angle (2026, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Occupational Health Hazards in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Results of the 2023 SCAI Survey (2025, Cross-sectional survey)
- Addressing the Occupational Risk of Radiation Exposure in the Evolving Field of Interventional Echocardiography (2024, Narrative review)
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, 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.