Recording interventionalists' occupational dose by clinical procedure: a novel approach to radiation safety

In plain language

In one Spanish hospital, linking electronic dosimeters to each procedure showed interventional cardiologists and radiologists where their dose came from, such as spinal injections and biliary drainages, and flagged operators for feedback on shielding use. Benefit on dose was anecdotal.

At a glance

Type of study: Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
Who was studied: Interventional cardiologists, Interventional radiologists
Size: n = 3,373 procedures
Where: Spain
Topics: Dosimetry and monitoring Eye lens and cataracts Room shielding and protective devices Safety culture and compliance Patient dose Training and education
Summary based on: the full text

What it found

Median operator dose per procedure was 15.3 µSv in cardiology and 17.2 µSv in interventional radiology; median cumulative over-apron dose over 9 months was 2.50 and 3.28 mSv.
Key figures: Cardiology 2.50 (1.0) mSv, 15.3 (4.1) µSv/procedure; interventional radiology (IR) 3.28 (1.2) mSv, 17.2 (10) µSv/procedure
Median operator-to-patient dose ratio was 0.2 µSv/Gy·cm2 in cardiology and 0.3 in radiology, lower than values reported by other studies.
Key figures: 0.2 and 0.3 µSv/Gy·cm2
For one neuroradiologist, simple spinal infiltrations produced most of the operator's dose despite little patient dose, showing where protection could be improved.
Key figures: 75% of operator dose vs 10% of patient kerma-area product (KAP)
Over 2024, 6 of 21 interventionalists triggered yellow alerts and none triggered red; two had annual over-apron doses of 8.2 and 8.4 mSv, about double colleagues' average.
Key figures: 6 of 21 yellow; 8.2 and 8.4 mSv
Biliary drainages accounted for 17% of these two operators' dose but 2.5% of KAP, with dose/KAP ratios of 3-4 µSv/Gy·cm2; after feedback, one of the two considerably reduced most metrics in 2025.
Key figures: 17% PDE vs 2.5% KAP; 3-4 µSv/Gy·cm2

Limits to keep in mind

Single-centre descriptive report of a prototype with 19-21 operators, no control group and anecdotal before/after evidence. Electronic dosimeters have pulsed-beam limitations, up to 5% data loss, and over-apron Hp(10) was used as a surrogate for eye lens dose.

Radiation protection practices in diagnostic and interventional cardiology: Position paper from Portuguese Association of Interventional Cardiology (2025, Guideline or consensus statement)
Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
Occupational radiation exposure and radiation protection practices in interventional radiology and cardiology: A multicenter study in France (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS Expert Consensus Statement on Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
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 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.