ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2024
Radiation Exposure and Protection for (Assumed) Pregnant Interventional Cardiologists and Electrophysiologists.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Guideline
- SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS Expert Consensus Statement on Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Occupational Hazards in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: Radiation and Beyond-ANMCO Position Paper Update 2026.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Radiation safety in catheter ablation: clinical value of real-time operator dosimetry.Heart and vessels · 2025Article
- Occupational Health Hazards in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Results of the 2023 SCAI Survey.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- What Is Needed to Encourage Women to Choose Careers in Interventional Cardiology.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Concern about fetus radiation dose and assumed health effects remains a barrier for women considering a career in invasive cardiology. However, there is a lack of real-world fetus exposure data that can be used to support career decisions. The purpose of this work was to measure radiation exposure to invasive cardiologists which would contribute to dose to the fetus during pregnancy. Methods: Radiation exposure to 42 female and male interventional cardiologists and electrophysiologists was monitored during their clinical routine. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the influences of patient radiation exposure, radioprotective garment material thickness (0.25, 0.35, 0.5 mm Pb equivalent), and cardiologist sex, height, and clinical role on occupational radiation exposure to the abdomen. Results: Exposure to the abdomen of invasive cardiologists increased proportional to patient exposure and decreased predictably with increasing radioprotective material thickness. The median abdomen exposure when covered with a 0.5 mm Pb equivalent radioprotective material over a 40-week period was 0.22 mGy (95th percentile, 0.8 mGy). Physician sex, height, and clinical role did not influence occupational exposure. Conclusions: The use of a 0.5 mm Pb equivalent radioprotective garment covering the abdomen, combined with appropriate radiation safety practices, can ensure that fetus radiation dose is below both US and international limits. Assumed fetus risk due to very low occupational radiation exposure is likely inconsequential in light of other known pregnancy risks.
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.