ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2026
Randomized Evaluation of a Textile-Based Enhanced Radiation Protection Device Versus Control Shielding in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Occupational radiation exposure remains an inherent risk in cardiac catheterization laboratories. Conventional radiation protection relies on ceiling- and table-mounted shields combined with wearable lead-equivalent personal protective equipment, yet exposure persists and ergonomic burden remains substantial. Enhanced radiation protection devices (ERPD) aim to attenuate scatter radiation at the patient level, but randomized evaluations using comprehensive dosimetry are limited. Methods: In this prospective, single-center, cluster-randomized study, shielding strategies were alternated by week (6 ERPD vs 6 control weeks). A textile-based ERPD (Texray MasterPeace™) was compared with control shielding. Occupational radiation exposure to the first operator and scrub nurse was assessed using a 69-point thermoluminescent dosimetry array worn over personal protective equipment, capturing deep dose equivalent (Hp(10) for operator and scrub nurse roles. The primary end point was weekly cumulative Hp(10) normalized to patient radiation output. Secondary analyses included spatial dose distribution and accumulated Hp(10) over the study period. Results: A total of 190 procedures were included (ERPD n = 90; control n = 100). Baseline procedural characteristics, including dose area product and fluoroscopy time, were similar between groups. Mean weekly operator Hp(10) was 0.11 mSv with conventional shielding and 0.02 mSv with ERPD (mean difference -0.083 mSv; 95% CI -0.106 to -0.061; Conclusions: In a randomized real-world setting, MasterPeace ERPD substantially reduced occupational radiation exposure for both operators and scrub nurses, supporting its use as an adjunct to conventional shielding.
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.