ArticleJACC. Case reports2025
Optimizing Radiation Safety Without Compromising Quality of Care.
Article in JACC. Case reports, 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCumulative radiation exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory poses substantial long-term health risks to operators and staff. Although lead aprons mitigate exposure, they contribute to occupational injury. Recent innovations such as the Rampart M1128 enhanced protection system promise improved shielding without the occupational risk, but their impact on urgent performance metrics remains uncertain, prompting a quality improvement (QI) initiative to evaluate safety and timeliness in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). PROJECT RATIONALE: This initiative investigated whether introducing the Rampart M1128 maintained timely perfusion while improving staff safety. PROJECT SUMMARY: In a single-center retrospective QI analysis, 174 patients with STEMI underwent percutaneous coronary intervention-87 with standard lead aprons and 87 after Rampart M1128 adoption. Adjusted analyses showed a mean difference in door-to-balloon time of 1.51 minutes (95% CI: -0.86 to 3.87 minutes; P = 0.21), well within our predefined 5-minute noninferiority threshold. No delays were seen in high-acuity subgroups. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Adopting enhanced radiation shielding with Rampart M1128 preserved STEMI treatment timelines while improving staff safety, supporting its integration into catheterization laboratory QI strategies.
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.