Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36765105›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

A comparison of patient dose and occupational eye dose to the operator and nursing staff during transcatheter cardiac and endovascular procedures.

Kelly S Wilson-Stewart, Davide Fontanarosa, Eva Malacova, Jamie V Trapp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Two Central Nervous System Tumors in One Catheter Lab: Time to Rethink Radiation Protection.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Radiation-induced injury in endovascular surgery: How long is too long?Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly S Wilson-StewartSchool of Chemistry and Physics, Faculty of Science, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. wilson-stewartk@ramsayhealth.com.au.
Davide FontanarosaCentre for Biomedical Technologies, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Eva MalacovaSchool of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Jamie V TrappSchool of Chemistry and Physics, Faculty of Science, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number and complexity of transcatheter procedures continue to increase, raising concerns regarding radiation exposure to patients and staff. Procedures such as transaortic valve implantations (TAVI) have led to cardiologists adopting higher dose techniques, such as digital subtraction angiography (DSA). This study compared the estimated patient and occupational eye dose during coronary angiography (CA), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), TAVI workups (TWU), TAVI, endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVAR), and other peripheral diagnostic (VD) and interventional (VI) vascular procedures. A quantitative analysis was performed on patient dose during 299 endovascular and 1498 cardiac procedures. Occupational dose was measured for the cardiologists (n = 24), vascular surgeons (n = 3), scrub (n = 32) and circulator nurses (n = 35). TAVI and EVAR were associated with the highest average dose for all staff, and significantly higher patient dose area product, probably attributable to the use of DSA. Scrub nurses were exposed to higher average doses than the operator and scout nurse during CA, VD and VI. Circulating nurses had the highest average levels of exposure during TAVI. This study has demonstrated that EVAR and TAVI have similar levels of occupational and patient dose, with a notable increase in circulator dose during TAVI. The use of DSA during cardiac procedures is associated with an increase in patient and staff dose, and cardiologists should evaluate whether DSA is necessary. Scrub nurses may be exposed to higher levels of occupational dose than the operator.

Indexed as

Aortic Aneurysm, AbdominalBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationEndovascular ProceduresNursing StaffOccupational ExposurePercutaneous Coronary InterventionHumansRadiation Dosage

Identifiers

PMID36765105
PMCPMC9918729
OpenAlexW4319970155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.