ReviewCurrent radiopharmaceuticals2024
An In-depth Analysis of the Adverse Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure on Cardiac Catheterization Staffs.
Review in Current radiopharmaceuticals, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Safety Knowledge, Perceptions, and Self-Reported Practices Among Healthcare Workers in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Radiation-Attenuating Drape on Exposure in a Contemporary Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: The ATTENUATE Trial.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Emerging Image-Guided Navigation Techniques for Cardiovascular Interventions: A Scoping Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advancements in Cardiac Catheterization Safety: Novel Radiation Protection Approaches Redefining Occupational Health.Current cardiology reviews · 2025Review
- Assessment of Left Ventricular Shape Index and Eccentricity Index as Promising Parameters for Detection of Left Ventricular Remodeling in Cardiovascular Events.Current cardiology reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic and interventional angiograms are instrumental in the multidisciplinary approach to CAD management, enabling accurate diagnosis and effective targeted treatments that significantly enhance patient care and cardiovascular outcomes. However, cath lab staff, including interventional cardiologists, is consistently exposed to ionizing radiation, which poses inherent health risks. Radiation exposure in the cath lab primarily results from the use of fluoroscopy and cineangiography during diagnostic and interventional procedures. Understanding these risks and implementing effective radiation protection measurements are imperative to ensure the well-being of healthcare professionals while delivering high-quality cardiac care. Prolonged and repeated exposure can lead to both deterministic and stochastic effects. Deterministic effects, such as skin erythema and tissue damage, are more likely to occur at high radiation doses. Interventional cardiologists and staff may experience these effects when safety measures are not rigorously followed. In fact, while ionizing radiation is essential in the practice of radiation cardiology ward, cath lab staff faces inherent risks from radiation exposure. Stochastic effects, on the other hand, are characterized by a probabilistic relationship between radiation exposure and the likelihood of harm. These effects include the increased risk of cancer, particularly for those with long-term exposure. Interventional cardiologists, due to their frequent presence in the cath lab, face a higher lifetime cumulative radiation dose, potentially elevating their cancer risk. Protective measures, including the use of lead aprons, thyroid shields, and radiation monitoring devices, play a crucial role in reducing radiation exposure for cath lab personnel. Adherence to strict dose optimization protocols, such as minimizing fluoroscopy time and maximizing distance from the radiation source, is also essential in mitigating these risks. Ongoing research and advancements in radiation safety technology are essential in further for minimizing the adverse effects of ionizing radiation in the cath lab.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38314600What 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.