In plain language
During a Michigan statewide radiation safety initiative, patient air kerma in over 131,000 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures fell by about a third and high-dose cases dropped sharply. Staff doses were not measured, though lower patient dose generally means less scatter for the fluoroscopy team.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Patients
- Size
- n = 131,619 PCI procedures
- Where
- United States
- Topics
- Patient doseDose reduction techniquesTraining and educationSafety culture and complianceDosimetry and monitoring
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Median procedural air kerma fell from the first to the last study year.
Key figures: 1.46 (0.86-2.37) Gy to 0.97 (0.56-1.64) Gy (P<0.001)
The share of high-dose cases (air kerma ≥5 Gy) declined.
Key figures: 4.24% to 0.86% (P<0.0001)
After adjustment for known dose predictors, each later year of PCI was associated with lower air kerma.
Key figures: 7.61% (95% confidence interval (CI), 7.38%-7.84%) reduction per year (P<0.0001)
The initiative combined education, institutional dose reporting and hospital performance metrics.
Limits to keep in mind
Observational registry trend without a control group, so the decline cannot be attributed causally to the initiative. Only patient air kerma was measured, not staff dose; abstract only.
Related research summaries
- Reducing radiation exposure during procedures performed in the electrophysiology laboratory (2017, Retrospective cohort study)
- 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)
- Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory (2011, Guideline or consensus statement)
- ICRP Publication 117. Radiological Protection In Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed Outside The Imaging Department (2010, Guideline or consensus statement)
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.