ArticleStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team2026
Radiation Realities: Radiation Safety Practices and Awareness Among Interventional Echocardiographers in the United States.
Article in Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team, 2026. 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.
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
Background: With the rise of structural heart interventions (SHIs), interventional echocardiographers (IEs) face significant radiation exposure in catheterization laboratories. However, US-specific radiation safety practices remain understudied. This study aims to address radiation safety practices and concerns among US IEs, focusing on occupational risks and sex-specific challenges. Methods: A 21-item online survey was conducted from March to June 2025, targeting US IEs through a multifaceted recruitment strategy. It assessed demographics, SHI frequency, radiation monitoring, shielding practices, and reproductive health concerns. Descriptive statistics summarized responses, with sex-specific analyses for female IEs. Results: Of 69 respondents (64% [n = 44] men, 36% [n = 25] women), 88% (n = 61) worked in tertiary care settings and 46% (n = 32) guided SHIs several times weekly. Key gaps were identified, including 18% (n = 17) not using dosimeters, 64% (n = 44) never receiving exposure notifications, and 80% (n = 55) lacking awareness of their personal annual radiation dose. In addition, 30% (n = 21) had no radiation safety training, and 75% (n = 52) reported insufficient radiation protection in their catheterization laboratory. Reproductive health concerns affected 71% (n = 49) of IEs. Among female IEs, 56% (n = 14) reported an influence on pregnancy planning, 32% (n = 8) noted career concerns owing to maternity, and 63% of those who had had a pregnancy (n = 12/19) performed SHIs during pregnancy, with 7% taking no additional precautions. Conclusions: US IEs face critical radiation safety gaps, including inadequate monitoring, training, and shielding, with pronounced reproductive and career concerns among female IEs. Tailored protocols, enhanced shielding, and pregnancy-specific precautions are urgently needed to ensure the safety and well-being of IEs.
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.