In plain language
In one interventional cardiologist measured during real procedures, a 0.12 mmPb leaded full-face shield lowered measured head skin dose to about 32-57% of unshielded values and eye-area dose to 10-35%, with protection varying by location.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists
- Size
- n = 1 cardiologists
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Dose reduction factors across superficial head areas with the 0.12 mmPb face shield varied by location, with the lowest (best protection) at the frontal lobe.
Key figures: DRF 0.32 to 0.57
Around the eye orbits, the face shield achieved substantial dose reduction, greater on the right than the left side.
Key figures: DRF 0.10 (right), 0.35 (left)
Measurements were made in vivo on a primary cardiologist during real procedures using 29 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) in a tight-fitting mask.
Key figures: 29 TLDs
Limits to keep in mind
Single operator, abstract only, with separate measurement series for the two conditions so procedure differences may affect comparisons; number of procedures and country not reported. Skin dose Hp(0.07) is not a health outcome.
Related research summaries
- Head and Neck Radiation Dose and Radiation Safety for Interventional Physicians (2017, Phantom or simulation study)
- Occupational Health Hazards in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Results of the 2023 SCAI Survey (2025, Cross-sectional survey)
- Radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
- Addressing the Occupational Risk of Radiation Exposure in the Evolving Field of Interventional Echocardiography (2024, Narrative review)
- Radiation Exposure, Training, and Safety in Cardiology (2024, 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.