ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2025
Evaluation of a first of a kind robotic radiation protection technology to reduce scatter exposure during diagnostic procedures and percutaneous coronary interventions.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Next-Generation Scatter Radiation Shielding Systems".Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated the effectiveness of the Radiaction system in providing comprehensive protection to medical personnel during fluoroscopy-guided procedures in an Interventional Cardiology (IC) laboratory. The system confines the imaging beam and blocks scatter radiation at its source, enhancing safety for the Cath lab staff. Methods: A prospective, non-randomized, controlled study compared real-time procedures with and without Radiaction. Sensors were placed around the room and on the main physician to measure radiation exposure during 82 diagnostic and 24 interventional cases without the Radiaction system and 65 diagnostic and 39 interventional cases with Radiaction. Results: Results demonstrated a significant reduction in radiation exposure with the Radiaction system. Across all cases, the overall reduction in radiation was 74.7 % for all sensor locations and 82.9 % for the main physician. Diagnostic procedures exhibited a reduction of 73 % with the Radiaction system and Interventional procedures demonstrated a 79 % reduction across all sensors with the Radiaction system. Calculations were conducted to estimate the reduction during the time that the system was deployed, revealing an 85.7 % reduction across all sensors and 95.1 % for the main physician, reflecting the full potential of the system when used during 100 % of the X-ray time. Users expressed high satisfaction with the system, citing its user-friendly nature, and seamless integration into clinical workflow. Conclusions: The Radiaction system significantly reduced radiation exposure in all cases compared to cases conducted without Radiaction. These findings support the potential of the Radiaction system to offer full-body protection from scattered radiation to all medical personnel in the IC suite, emphasizing its value in enhancing occupational safety in medical environments.
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.