In plain language
This review concludes that with standard protection, measured abdominal doses in pregnant fluoroscopy team members are very low and the added risk to the foetus appears small, though direct evidence from exposed health workers is limited and mostly retrospective.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Narrative review
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists, Electrophysiologists, Interventional radiologists, Nurses, Mixed lab staff
- Topics
- Pregnancy and reproductive healthWomen in the fieldWorkforce and careersPersonal protective equipmentRoom shielding and protective devicesDosimetry and monitoringDose reduction techniquesRegulation and policyMusculoskeletal injury and ergonomicsTraining and education
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
Doses measured at the abdomen of pregnant interventional operators are far below thresholds for foetal loss.
Key figures: 0-0.1 mSv per month
A fellow wearing an abdominal dosimeter and two apron skirts recorded zero foetal exposure across 758 neurointerventional cases without reducing case volume.
Key figures: 758 cases; 47 vs 46 cases/month, p = 0.862
Probability of a live birth without malformation or childhood cancer is nearly unchanged at occupational-level conceptus doses.
Key figures: 95.93% baseline vs 95.99% at 1 mGy and 95.88% at 5 mGy
Correctly positioned ceiling and table shields block most scatter, but poor positioning reduces protection substantially.
Key figures: >80% protection; <50% if misplaced
Radiation concern is a major barrier for women entering interventional fields.
Key figures: almost one-third of women of childbearing age
Limits to keep in mind
Narrative review without systematic search; evidence on pregnancy outcomes in exposed staff is mostly small retrospective studies and case series, with no prospective cohorts.
Related research summaries
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, 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)
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, Narrative review)
- 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 5, 2026.