Radiation-Induced Noncancer Risks in Interventional Cardiology: Optimisation of Procedures and Staff and Patient Dose Reduction

In plain language

This review summarises evidence that interventional cardiologists, nurses and technologists show more lens opacities than unexposed groups, that low-dose cardiovascular risk remains unclear, and that shielding, garments, dose-reduction techniques and training lower staff and patient dose.

At a glance

Type of study: Narrative review
Who was studied: Interventional cardiologists, Electrophysiologists, Nurses, Radiologic technologists, Patients
Topics: Eye lens and cataracts Cardiovascular disease Personal protective equipment Room shielding and protective devices Dosimetry and monitoring Dose reduction techniques Training and education Regulation and policy Patient dose DNA and cellular effects
Summary based on: the full text

What it found

In the O'CLOC study cited, interventional cardiologists had more posterior subcapsular lens opacities than unexposed controls.
Key figures: 18% vs 5% (P < 0.05)
A cited study found lens changes in half of interventional cardiologists and in many nurses and technicians, versus under 10% of controls.
Key figures: 50% and 41% vs <10%
A substantial share of cardiologists had cumulative eye lens doses above the revised International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 500 mSv threshold.
Key figures: 29% of interventional cardiologists; 20% of electrophysiologists
Protective garments greatly lowered cited annual effective dose to interventional cardiologists.
Key figures: 46.2 mSv unprotected; 3.5 mSv with apron; 1.7 mSv with apron and thyroid shield
Evidence for low-dose radiation causing cardiovascular disease is limited; atomic bomb data suggest a threshold possibly as low as 0.5 Gy to the heart.
Key figures: 0.5 Gy

Limits to keep in mind

Narrative review without systematic search; figures are drawn from heterogeneous cited studies, and cardiovascular evidence relies largely on atomic bomb survivor data rather than occupational cohorts.

Radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
AST Standards for Ionizing Radiation Exposure (Guideline or consensus statement)
ICRP Draft - Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures (Guideline or consensus statement)
Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology (2022, Narrative review)

How this summary was made

ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the full text 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.