ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2025
Real-World Reductions in Lead-Free Radiation Exposure with the Rampart System during Endovascular Procedures.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- 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
- Impact of Ceiling Suspended Shield Size on Primary Operator Radiation Dose During Coronary Angiography and Intervention.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Comment on "Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Next-Generation Scatter Radiation Shielding Systems".Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Standards for Comparative Radiation Protection Research.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Radiation Safety Renaissance: Will State Regulations Help or Hinder an Emergence From the Dark Ages?Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Endovascular operators experience elevated rates of occupational orthopedic injuries and persistent radiation exposure with current lead shielding. Novel shielding systems eliminate the need to wear lead aprons while also mitigating occupational radiation exposure, but real-world evidence of their efficacy remains needed. This study evaluated consecutive endovascular procedures requiring fluoroscopy at U.S. and international institutions following installation of a commercially available portable shielding system consisting of interlocking radiation-attenuating acrylic and soft shielding components. Live dosimeters were placed at the left shoulder of the main and assistant operators for quantification of radiation exposure. In total, 1,712 endovascular procedures performed by 671 operators at 153 sites (19% non-U.S.). In 1,712 (99.4%), radiation exposure was recorded. A majority of procedures (83.6%) were coronary interventions including diagnostic angiography (43.8%), nonchronic total occlusion PCI (27.6%), and chronic total occlusion PCI (6.7%). Median fluoroscopy time was 7.7 mins (IQR 3.9 to 15.3 min), and median radiation exposure to the main operator and first assistant was 2 μSv and 1 μSv. This was comparable to historical measurements of under-lead radiation exposure. In conclusion, the Rampart system effectively reduced radiation exposure in real-world practice, enabling a safe lead-free procedure lab.
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.