A medical device radiation protection study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) reports that a table-mounted shielding system called EggNest Complete lowered the estimated annual collar radiation dose to the primary operator from 86.7 mRem to 25.5 mRem, according to a release issued on 21 October 2026 by the device maker, Egg Medical. The work was carried out at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, and the figures below are the company’s description of it.
Key takeaways from the medical device radiation protection study
- The numbers come from an Egg Medical press release; we did not locate the JAHA paper itself, and the release gives no DOI.
- Estimated annual collar dose for the primary operator fell from 86.7 mRem with standard shielding to 25.5 mRem with EggNest Complete (p < 0.001), per the company.
- With EggNest Complete, total effective doses for primary operators, scrub assistants and circulating nurses were about 1% of the 5,000 mRem annual maximum the release attributes to the ICRP.
- Annualised EDE-1 for the primary operator was 51.4 mRem with 0.5 mm lead aprons and standard shielding, versus 1.4 mRem with 0.125 mm ultralight aprons and EggNest Complete (p < 0.001).
- Sample size, procedure counts, instruments and limitations are not stated, so this medical device radiation protection study cannot be assumed to apply at other labs.
How the medical device radiation protection study was designed
The release describes the work as a prospective, real-world clinical study at The Christ Hospital, with Dr. Santiago Garcia, an interventional cardiologist there, as principal investigator. It compared standard shielding, with operators in heavy 0.5 mm lead aprons, against EggNest Enhanced Radiation Protection Devices paired with 0.125 mm ultralight aprons.
The release does not state how many procedures or operators were included, over what period, which dosimeters were used, or what limitations the authors acknowledge. It names no authors other than the principal investigator, and the only link it offers to the paper is a tracking link. We searched for a public listing and did not find one at the time of writing; the journal’s home is at ahajournals.org. Until the paper is readable, the design remains partly opaque.
What the results show
In this medical device radiation protection study the headline result is the collar dose: 86.7 mRem a year with standard shielding against 25.5 mRem with EggNest Complete. By our own arithmetic that is 61.2 mRem lower, or about 71%. For the second comparison, 51.4 mRem against 1.4 mRem is a difference of 50 mRem, or about 97%. These percentages are our calculations from the company’s numbers, not figures stated in the release.
The release also says total effective doses for the primary operator, scrub assistant and circulating nurse were 1% of the annual maximum of 5,000 mRem with EggNest Complete, which implies roughly 50 mRem. The release does not state that number, so it is our reading. It cites the CDC’s figure of about 3.5 mRem for a five-to-six-hour flight as context. Both comparisons are described as statistically significant, but without a sample size, a p-value cannot be interpreted fully.
General background: radiation in the interventional lab
Staff in interventional labs work near an X-ray source, and scatter radiation is the main source of their exposure. They typically wear lead aprons and thyroid collars and use ceiling-mounted and table-side shields. Heavy aprons are linked to musculoskeletal strain, a point the release raises. A collar dosimeter is usually worn above the apron, so it reflects exposure to the head and neck rather than the shielded trunk. The International Commission on Radiological Protection sets out occupational dose guidance.
One benchmark detail matters. 5,000 mRem equals 50 mSv, the figure the release uses. ICRP guidance also uses an average of 20 mSv a year over five years, and against that benchmark the same dose would be a different fraction. That is general background and not a criticism of the release.
The Texas variance
The company also says the Texas Department of State Health Services recently granted a state radiation variance to Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio. The release gives no date and no terms. We have not seen the variance, so we cannot say what it permits or how it relates to the study. See our medical device coverage for related device news.
Our analysis: promising but not decisive
In our assessment, this medical device radiation protection study is worth attention because large relative dose reductions are plausible when additional shielding is placed close to the source. But the size of any benefit depends on lab geometry, procedure mix and operator behaviour, none of which the release describes. The second comparison also changes two things at once, the apron weight and the table shielding, so the reduction cannot be attributed to the device alone.
A medical device radiation protection study of this kind also tells us little about long-term outcomes. Dose is a surrogate for risk, and the release makes no claim about health outcomes. Lead apron alternatives remain an active topic, and the company itself frames its approach as apron-optional where approved, not as a single standard.
What is not disclosed about the medical device radiation protection study
- The number of procedures, operators and staff measured.
- The measurement method, dosimeter placement and study period.
- The paper’s title, author list, DOI and stated limitations.
- Funding and author financial relationships with Egg Medical.
- The terms and date of the Texas variance.
Risks and caveats for the medical device radiation protection study
The source is a company release, which presents the results in the most favourable light. The release carries quotes from clinicians at The Christ Hospital, including one saying he is completely comfortable working apron-free, which is an opinion and not a data point. Results from one site do not establish the same outcome elsewhere, and regulatory approaches to apron use differ by jurisdiction. This is news reporting and not medical or regulatory advice.
What to watch next
- Publication details of the medical device radiation protection study, including the DOI and the data tables.
- Independent studies at other sites and in electrophysiology and structural heart work.
- Guidance from professional societies and regulators on apron-optional workflows.
- Further state-level decisions after the Texas variance.
FAQ
Is the medical device radiation protection study peer reviewed?
Egg Medical says it was published in JAHA. We did not locate the paper, so we cannot confirm its details.
Does EggNest Complete remove the need for lead aprons?
The company says it supports apron-optional workflows where approved. The study compared it with ultralight aprons, not with no apron.
Who is Egg Medical?
Egg Medical, Inc. is the Minneapolis-based maker of the EggNest products and the source of the release. Its site is at eggmedical.com.
How we reported this: we read the company release (GlobeNewswire) and attributed every figure to Egg Medical. Calculations are labelled as ours. Last updated 23 October 2026. This is news reporting and not advice.