Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30280302›Full record

ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2019

Occupational and patient radiation doses in a modern cardiac electrophysiology laboratory.

Kevin A Wunderle, Mina K Chung, Sripriya Rayadurgam, Mark A Miller, Nancy A Obuchowski, Bruce D Lindsay

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Occupational Health Hazards in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Results of the 2023 SCAI Survey.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Risk of ionizing radiation in pregnancy: just a myth or a real concern?Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kevin A WunderleDepartment of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, 25900 Science Park Dr., AC211, Beachwood, OH, 44122, USA. wunderk@ccf.org.
Mina K ChungDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Sripriya RayadurgamDepartment of Radiation Safety, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Mark A MillerDepartment of Radiation Safety, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Nancy A ObuchowskiDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Bruce D LindsayDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTechnological advancements have greatly expanded the field of cardiac electrophysiology, requiring greater demands on imaging systems and potentially delivering higher radiation doses to patients and operators. With little contemporary research on occupational and patient radiation risk in the electrophysiology laboratory, the aim of this study was to analyze radiation doses, including occupational fetal doses, over approximately the last decade. We benchmarked the occupational data to our patient radiation dose data to allow for comparison and to put into perspective the associated radiation risks.

methodsOccupational radiation dosimetry analyzed included data from an 11-year period for physicians, a 7-year period for nurses, and a 9-year period for fetal doses. Patient-related dose metrics over an 8-year period were also analyzed.

resultsIn the physician and nursing groups, there was a nearly 70% decrease in the average occupational radiation doses over the given periods. Within the electrophysiology department, the average fetal occupational doses were very low, close to 0 μSv. The average reference point air kerma per patient for all electrophysiology procedures decreased from nearly 600 mGy/procedure in 2010 to just over 100 mGy/procedure in 2017.

conclusionsPatient and occupational radiation doses in our laboratories significantly decreased over the periods analyzed as a result of clinical and technical staff efforts as well as advances in imaging technology. The radiation-related risk to individuals working in our electrophysiology laboratories, including pregnant women, is very low. Data reported herein could be used by other institutions to evaluate their occupational and patient radiation safety practices.

Indexed as

Electrophysiologic Techniques, CardiacOccupational ExposureRadiation DosageRadiography, InterventionalAdultFemaleFetusFluoroscopyHumansMalePregnancyRadiation MonitoringRadiation ProtectionOccupational dosePatient doseRadiationRadiation dose

Identifiers

PMID30280302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.