4.5 Article

SCAI consensus document on occupational radiation exposure to the pregnant cardiologist and technical personnel

Journal

EUROINTERVENTION
Volume 6, Issue 7, Pages 866-874

Publisher

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV6I7A148

Keywords

Radiation physics; diagnostic cardiac catheterisation percutaneous coronary intervention

Funding

  1. Medtronic
  2. Merck and Co. Inc.
  3. Pfizer Inc.
  4. Portola Pharmaceuticals
  5. Eli Lilly and Company
  6. Servier
  7. Abbott
  8. Accumetrics
  9. Bracco
  10. Abiomed
  11. AlphaMedica
  12. Astra Zeneca
  13. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  14. Cariva
  15. Daiichi Sankyo
  16. Datascope
  17. Gilead
  18. Gerbet
  19. Regado
  20. St. Jude
  21. Therox
  22. Abbott Vascular

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Concerns regarding radiation exposure and its effects during pregnancy are often quoted as an important barrier preventing many women from pursuing a career in Interventional Cardiology. Finding the true risk of radiation exposure from performing cardiac catheterisation procedures can be challenging and guidelines for pregnancy exposure have been inadequate. The Women in Innovations group of Cardiologists with endorsement of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions aim to provide guidance in this publication by describing the risk of radiation exposure to pregnant physicians and cardiac catheterisation personnel, to educate on appropriate radiation monitoring and to encourage mechanisms to reduce radiation exposure. Current data do not suggest a significant increased risk to the fetus of pregnant women in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory and thus do not justify precluding pregnant physicians from performing procedures in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. However, radiation exposure among pregnant physicians should be properly monitored and adequate radiation safety measures are still warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available