ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2026
Two Central Nervous System Tumors in One Catheter Lab: Time to Rethink Radiation Protection.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 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.
- ALARA Without Modern Equipment: Aging Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Fluoroscopy Infrastructure in Illinois and California.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVery little research has been done on the possible effects that repeated, frequent, and low-dose ionizing radiation exposure has on the long-term health of interventional cardiologists.
aimsFollowing the diagnosis in the same year of two central nervous system tumors in two operators working in the same catheter laboratory, we sought to compare the effect that introducing a new catheter laboratory would have on total patient dose.
methodsWe analyzed the radiation dose over an 18-year period for 9002 patients (2006-2025) as two cohorts, 2006-2019 (Lab 1, 5677 patients) and 2019-2025 (Lab 2, 3326 patients).
resultsWe found that there was an upward trend in total exposure dose for Lab 1 before it was decommissioned (R
conclusionsAccepting the hypothesis that there is a linear no-threshold dose response relationship between low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk in operators, we can understand factors that may have contributed to unnecessary excess exposure and how this could be prevented. X-ray patient doses increased steadily over time, without a change in procedure time. The significant reduction in dose following the introduction of new equipment strongly suggests that ionizing radiation doses should be closely monitored, with plans in place to routinely replace equipment on an 8 to 10-year cycle.
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.