ReviewJournal of interventional cardiology2020
Temporal Trends in X-Ray Exposure during Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Review in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decadal Changes in Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels for X-Ray Angiography: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Multimodality Approach to Coronary Ischemic Testing in Pediatric Patients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- Collar Badge Lens Dose Equivalent Values among United States Physicians Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2022Article
- Effect of an optimized X-ray blanket design on operator radiation dose in cardiac catheterization based on real-world angiography.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention exposes patient and staff to ionizing radiation. Although staff only receive a small fraction of patient dose through scatter radiation, there are concerns about the potential health effects of repeated exposure. Minimizing both patient and occupational exposure is needed.
objectiveThis article investigates patient and operator X-ray exposure over time in coronary intervention in relation to upgraded X-ray equipment, improved shielding, and enhanced operator awareness. MATERIALS AND
methodsData regarding irradiation time, patient dose, and patient characteristics were extracted from the Norwegian Registry for Invasive Cardiology (NORIC) for procedures performed from 2013 to mid-2019. Personal operator dosimetry records were provided by the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Improved operator shielding and awareness measures were introduced in 2018.
resultsIn the period 2013 through June 2019, 21499 procedures were recorded in our institution. Mean dose area product (DAP) for coronary angiography decreased 37% from 2981
conclusionsThis study shows a temporal trend towards considerable reduction in X-ray doses received by the patient and operator during cardiac catheterization. Upgraded X-ray equipment, improved shielding, and enhanced operator awareness are likely contributors to this development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.