ArticleCureus2024
Radiation Exposure During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures: Portable Shielding System Versus Standard Lead Aprons.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06875583 (The Radiation ProtEction for Dose RedUction in the Cardiac CathEter Lab Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
The Radiation ProtEction for Dose RedUction in the Cardiac CathEter Lab Study: The REDUCE Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Evaluation of a Textile-Based Enhanced Radiation Protection Device Versus Control Shielding in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Intracardiac echocardiography guided zero-fluoroscopy workflow versus conventional fluoroscopy-guided workflow in atrial fibrillation ablation: efficiency, safety, and operator experience.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Significant progress in the field of interventional cardiology has led to a rise in percutaneous procedures and an increase in the risk of radiation exposure at the workplace. Staff health has been put at risk due to the limitations of conventional radiation protective techniques. Innovative methods, such as RAMPART, have promising prospects for enhancing radiation safety. The purpose of this study was to evaluate RAMPART's effectiveness and practicality in comparison to conventional protective techniques with a lead apron and shield (LAS) during cardiac interventional procedures. Method One hundred elective cardiac procedures were enrolled in this prospective single-center research study. Two groups were formed from the participants: standard protection (group A) and RAMPAT system (group B). Real-time dosimeters were used to track the radiation dosage, dosage reduction factor, dosage reduction percentage, and likelihood of exceeding the limit, which were included in the data. Proceduralists were urged to use different strategies to reduce exposure. The study was approved by an ethical committee and ran from June 2023 to August 2023. Results When comparing the RAMPART group to the conventional protection group, neck-level radiation exposure was considerably lower for all workers. There were no notable variations in the exposure of the waist. The RAMPART group was shown to be superior in minimizing radiation exposure, as evidenced by dose reduction metrics. The groups had comparable procedural characteristics. Conclusion Compared to conventional LAS, the RAMPART system dramatically reduces radiation exposure to the entire body.
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.