In plain language
In 764 cardiac catheterizations, adding an accessory lead shield for nurses and scrub technologists was associated with roughly 35% to 64% lower measured radiation dose for these staff, depending on adjustment.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Prospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Nurses, Radiologic technologists
- Size
- n = 764 procedures
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Accessory lead shield use was associated with 62.5% lower normalized dose per case among technologists.
Key figures: 62.5% lower; 2.4 [4.3] vs 0.9 [2.8] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; p < 0.001
Accessory lead shield use was associated with 63.6% lower normalized dose per case among nurses.
Key figures: 63.6% lower; 1.1 [3.1] vs 0.4 [1.8] μSv/[mGy × cm2] × 10-5; p < 0.001
After multivariate adjustment, shielding remained independently associated with lower dose among technologists.
Key figures: 34.2% reduction; 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.1% to 45.8%; p < 0.001
After multivariate adjustment, shielding remained independently associated with lower dose among nurses.
Key figures: 36.4% reduction; 95% CI 19.7% to 49.6%; p < 0.001
Shielding for staff other than physicians is not commonplace in catheterization labs.
Limits to keep in mind
Sequential two-phase observational design rather than randomization, so time-related changes in practice may confound results; dosimeter-based dose measures, not health outcomes; single-setting details not reported in the abstract.
Related research summaries
- Radiation exposure to operating room personnel and patients during endovascular procedures (2013, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Radiation Exposure To Operating Room Personnel And Patients During Endovascular Procedures (2013, Dosimetry measurement study)
- 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)
- 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.