In plain language
In 716 children undergoing biplane cardiac catheterization, the lateral plane delivered about 3.6 times more dose per minute than the frontal plane. Staff dose was not measured, but limiting lateral-plane time may reduce overall radiation use.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Retrospective cohort study
- Who was studied
- Patients
- Size
- n = 716 patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Per unit of beam-on time, the lateral plane delivered about 3.6 times the total kerma area product of the frontal plane.
Key figures: 3.6 times; total indexed kerma-area product (PKA) 1.43 vs. 5.15, p < 0.0001
Time-indexed fluoroscopic and cineangiographic PKA were also higher in the lateral plane.
Key figures: fluoroscopic 0.75 vs. 1.70; cine 16.03 vs. 24.92; p < 0.0001
The frontal plane was used much longer, yet raw total PKA did not differ between planes.
Key figures: frontal beam-on time 4.2 times greater
The authors recommend that operators consciously reduce lateral-plane beam-on time as part of radiation reduction protocols.
Limits to keep in mind
Single-centre retrospective study of patient dose metrics only. Staff dose was not measured, so implications for the fluoroscopy team are inferred.
Related research summaries
- Fluoroscopy-minimization strategy for catheter ablation of Supraventricular Tachycardia by wOmen OPerators: the STOOP Multicentre Registry (2026, Prospective cohort study)
- Two Central Nervous System Tumors in One Catheter Lab: Time to Rethink Radiation Protection (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- Radiation Awareness for EVAR in Hybrid Operating Room: An Instant Operator Risk Chart (2021, Dosimetry measurement study)
- Utilization of a Radiation Safety Time-Out Reduces Radiation Exposure During Electrophysiology Procedures (2019, Prospective cohort study)
- Completely nonfluoroscopic catheter ablation of left atrial arrhythmias and ventricular tachycardia (2018, Case report or series)
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.