In plain language
Across 23 cath lab studies, staff at the patient's head, such as anesthesia personnel, tended to receive more radiation than primary operators when unshielded, though not significantly; shielded head-position and assistant staff received much less. Dose results, not health outcomes.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Systematic review or meta-analysis, Meta-analysis
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists, Electrophysiologists, Anesthesia staff, Nurses, Radiologic technologists, Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 23 studies
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Unshielded personnel at the patient's head may receive more radiation than primary operators, though the difference was not statistically significant.
Key figures: Range of motion (ROM) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-4.18
Shielded workers at the head position received significantly lower exposure than primary operators.
Key figures: ROM 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57
Staff in secondary/assistant positions received about one-third of primary operator exposure.
Key figures: ROM 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25-0.43
The pooled analysis covered 8116 measurements from 3091 procedures in 23 studies.
Key figures: 8116 measurements; 3091 procedures; 23 studies
Authors conclude dedicated shielding and attention to all personnel, not just operators, are needed.
Limits to keep in mind
Based on the abstract only; pooled studies are heterogeneous in procedures, dosimetry methods and shielding, and the key unshielded head-position comparison had wide confidence intervals and was not statistically significant.
Related research summaries
- 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)
- 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.