Contact us
Build Your Business Case Contact Us

Protect everyone, in every case

Whole-room scatter radiation protection for the interventional lab

The EggNest® ERPD provides significant radiation reductions for everyone in the lab, giving staff the choice to go apron-free or wear ultralight aprons.1,14

Build your business case Talk to our team
As allowed by hospital, state and country regulations.1,2
Operator estimated annual collar dose
25.5 mrem
dose measured over the apron with EggNest Complete, in real-world procedures: total effective doses were <1% of the annual maximum20
Scatter reduction
Up to >99%
demonstrated in published clinical studies for staff standing behind the Complete Shield1
In use
375+ labs
250,000+ procedures protected in 22 countries to date
An ERPD pays for itself in
12 working days
based solely on cath lab operating costs. The ROI calculation does not require optimistic assumptions and only requires that one physician remains in the lab.19

The entire interventional team is at risk.

Two-thirds of scatter radiation comes from below the table, and the staff at the head of the table (Echo, Anesthesia and EP) receive up to 4× the scatter dose of the Operator.13

  • 3×higher cancer risk for interventional lab staff6
  • 6×higher cataract risk6
  • 7×higher orthopedic injury risk, from the weight of heavy aprons in every case6
  • 48%of interventional staff report orthopedic issues10
  • 70%say the problem was caused or worsened by work10
  • 50%have retired early or cut back because of it10

Watch The Radiation Problem Video

Protect everyone, in every case.

An Enhanced Radiation Protection Device that integrates with the table, so you don't add additional clutter or trip hazards, while still protecting all members of your interventional lab.

The EggNest consists of above and below the table shielding. The jam-board style Flip Shielding provides above the table protection on patient left and right. The Side and Head Flex Shields are designed to move with the x-ray gantry to allow imaging from all angles.18 When used correctly, EggNest protects everyone in the room, including the echocardiographer, nurse, anesthesia team, and implanting EP at the head of the table where scatter is highest.1,13

It is used across coronary, structural, EP, IR and vascular cases. In 133 STEMI patients, the lab with EggNest Complete showed no difference in door-to-balloon time from labs with standard shielding.16

See a virtual demonstration

Lead Free, Responsibly.

When ERPDs have demonstrably reduced radiation exposure to within regulatory safety limits, operators and laboratory personnel may elect to use reduced weight or no apron protection, provided there is rigorous real-time institutional monitoring, a clearly defined zone of protection, and compliance with respective state regulatory requirements.3

The decision to remove aprons belongs with you and your facility, guided by hospital policy and state regulations. Egg Medical will partner with your team to supply the data needed to support a state variance.

>50,000 cases The average operator could do over 50,000 cases before reaching the annual exposure limit with EggNest Complete and no aprons.* *5,000 mrem annual limit/(0.085 mrem per case)=58,824 cases. 0.085 mrem per case is 25.5 mrem a year at 300 cases a year.20
See the published data
Two gowned clinicians at the procedure table in a cath lab with EggNest Complete, its clear shield beside them

Construction-free interventional room protection.

No construction costs or lab downtime required for installation.

The EggNest Complete Flex shield hangs from your existing ceiling-mounted arm and takes approximately 45 minutes to install, meaning no construction costs or lab downtime.

~$50,000 savings Estimated construction costs for hospital ceiling mounting
EggNest installed on the procedure table of a cath lab, with the C-arm and monitors around it

The evidence

Peer-reviewed, published studies
6
AHJ Plus, JSCAI and JAHA, 2025 to 2026
Abstracts presented
14
PCR, TCT, CRT, ICI, SCAI, Veith, HPS and Western Vascular Society, 2018 to 2026
Studies in progress
6
across multiple specialties

The consensus is in:
Everyone in the room deserves protection from scatter radiation.

Six professional societies now agree that action on radiation exposure is urgent, and that Enhanced Radiation Protection Devices are central to it.3

  • SCAI
  • ACC
  • ASE
  • HRS
  • SIR
  • SVS
Read the consensus statement
Expert consensus statement Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action SCAI, ASE, HRS, SIR and SVS
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv, August 2026 doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2026.105455Read the statement

Build your business case

What is radiation exposure costing your department?

The financial risk of inaction is quantifiable, and it far exceeds the cost of protection. The risks are real, measurable, and growing: physician injury and absence, staff turnover and vacancy costs, rising regulatory scrutiny, and increasing litigation risk as the clinical evidence base for ERPD efficacy becomes harder to ignore.19

Open the cost calculator Access the ALARA+ coalition toolkit

Cost calculator

Calculating potential costs at your institution

Estimate the health-related costs of radiation exposure and heavy lead aprons for the staff in your fluoroscopy labs. The starting figures are an example lab of 6 physicians and 20 other staff. Change any number to match your institution; totals update as you type.

Cancer

1 in 25 high-volume operators; care costs of ~$50K to $200K.3,6 Starting figure: 1 in 25 of $125,000, or $5,000 per physician.

Potential cost $30,000

Early onset cataracts

Staff with cumulative dose >100 mSv; 50% of exposed physicians; care costs of $7,000 per eye.7,8 Starting figure: both eyes, $14,000.

Potential cost $42,000

Orthopedic injury

60% of staff may experience pain, with at least one severe injury; treatment costs of ~$10K and surgery costs of ~$50K.9,10,11 Starting figures: 16 of 26 staff treated; one surgery under Other costs.

Potential cost $160,000

Lost revenue from physician absence

Two months' loss of revenue, $570,000, due to one physician orthopedic injury.14,15 Absence can run six months or more. Starting figure: two physicians, or one physician out four months.

Potential cost $1,140,000

Other costs

Anything specific to your institution: workers' compensation, replacement staffing, lead apron inventory and disposal.

Total estimate

Potential health-related costs to your institution from radiation exposure and heavy lead aprons.

$1,422,000

For illustrative purposes only. Estimates reflect potential risks and costs due to radiation exposure and the use of heavy lead aprons. Base the number of staff at risk on your institution's staff numbers and radiation exposure.

References for risk and cost estimates
  1. Rizik DG, Sutton NR, Lansky AJ, Alasnag M, et al. SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS expert consensus statement on enhanced radiation protection: time for mandatory and urgent action. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2026;5(8):105455.
  2. Odanovic N, Gonzalez PE, Vora AN. Is Egg ready to leave the nest? J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4:103863.
  3. National Research Council. Health risks from low-level ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. National Academies Press; 2006:115.
  4. Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Guagliumi G, et al. Occupational health risks in cardiac catheterization laboratory workers. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003273.
  5. ORSIF. Economic impacts of radiation in interventional fluoroscopy. Occupational Radiation Safety and Innovation Foundation; 2018.
  6. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, et al. Cost of cancer care in the US: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:117–128.
  7. Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, et al. Radiation-associated lens opacities in cath personnel. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:197–204.
  8. MyVision.org. The cost of cataract surgery with or without insurance. 2 Mar 2022.
  9. Abudayyeh I, Dupont AG, Hermiller JB, et al. Occupational health hazards in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: results of the 2023 SCAI survey. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4(4):102493.
  10. Spears CA, et al. Health care resource utilization and management of chronic, refractory low back pain in the United States. Spine. 2020;45(20):E1333–E1341.
  11. Chang D, et al. Comparative review of the socioeconomic burden of lower back pain in the United States and globally. Neurospine. 2024;21(2):487–501.
  12. Riley RF, Kidd S, Power J, et al. Comparative effectiveness of 2 next-generation scatter radiation shielding systems. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4:103786.
  13. Wilson R, Gainor J, Valeti U, Montague J, Wilson B. TCT-248: A new device to markedly reduce cardiac cath lab radiation levels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(13 Suppl):B103.
  14. Ellison A. 5 specialties that drive the most revenue to hospitals. Becker's Hospital Review. 19 Jul 2022.

© 2026 Egg Medical. All rights reserved. EggNest is a trademark of Egg Medical, Inc. 0426.4044

Itemized bill to your lab

Radiation exposure and heavy lead aprons

Example costs, itemized
Cancer6 physicians × $5,000$30,000
Early onset cataracts3 physicians × $14,000$42,000
Orthopedic injury16 staff × $10,000$160,000
Lost revenue from physician absence$285k per month*$1,140,000
One orthopedic surgery$50,000
Potential cost$1,422,000

*Assumes a 4-month absence. An example lab of 6 physicians and 20 other staff, using the calculator's starting figures. Enter your own in the full calculator

There's more than one way to pay for it.

Capital budgets run in cycles, often delaying protection for staff. Our per-case pricing programs shorten the path to protection with no capital outlay required.

Available through partnerships with Biotronik and Gore.

  • Per-case pricingNo capital outlay; everything included
  • RentalFrom operational budget
  • Lease or lease-to-own
  • Bridge to budgetNo payments for three months; pay off when budget arrives, no penalty
  • Philanthropy or foundation funding
  • Cash or capital
“I am interested in only applying to centers that have your [EggNest] system. My main concern is my back and shoulder. I don't want to be causing worse damage if I know I can avoid it.”
Cardiology fellow, Johns Hopkins
“I can't imagine doing procedures without this kind of radiation shielding.”
Eric Dippel, MD, FACC, FSCAI, Vascular Institute of the Midwest · 0:47
Watch more from the experts on YouTube

Bring EggNest into your lab.

Tell us about your lab and we'll show you what whole-room protection looks like.

Talk to our team

Available through partnerships with Biotronik and Gore.

Questions we get asked

Straight answers about EggNest.

Are lead aprons required with EggNest?

The short answer is no. That decision, however, belongs to you, because protection is personal. Physicians and staff, together with lab leadership and your radiation safety officer, must follow hospital policy and state regulations.

The EggNest System makes the choice available: whole-room protection above and below the table, real-time dosimetry so every case is measured, and ultralight 0.125 mm aprons for anyone who chooses to wear one. If your lab chooses to go apron-free, we will work with you to provide data to support a variance request per state regulations.7,9

What is an ERPD?

An Enhanced Radiation Protection Device, the category named in the 2026 SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS expert consensus statement, which calls for mandatory and urgent action on staff radiation exposure. The EggNest Systems are all ERPDs.3

Who in the room is protected?

Everyone: the operator, the assistant, the nurse, the radiology tech, and the positions at the head of the table: the echocardiographer, the anesthesia team and the implanting EP, which receive the most scatter of anyone in the room. Protection is 360°, above and below the table.13

Does it work for every procedure?

EggNest is used across interventional cardiology, structural heart, electrophysiology, interventional radiology and vascular surgery, with a procedure-specific setup for each: femoral and radial access, device implantation and ablation, aortic and lower-extremity work. It fits the existing workflow without changing how the room runs.

What comes with EggNest Complete?

The Protect base system and the Complete hanging shield, a real-time dosimetry system with four badges, four sets of 0.125 mm ultralight aprons, and expert installation with one to two weeks of on-site support.

How do hospitals pay for it?

Cash or capital, lease or lease-to-own, rental from operational budget, per-case pricing with no capital outlay, bridge-to-budget, or philanthropic and foundation funding. EggNest is also available through partnerships with Biotronik and Gore. See the options.

Latest news

What's new at EGG Medical

  • JAHA publishes The Christ Hospital study of EggNest, and Texas grants a radiation variance20

    Read more

  • Six societies call enhanced radiation protection mandatory, and their consensus statement names EggNest3

    Read more

  • EggNest Complete 2.0 debuts, with a lighter base and molded carbon fiber shields

    Read more

See all news

References and regulatory note

* Apron-free workflows as allowed by hospital, state and country regulations.

  1. Riley RF, Kidd S, Power J, Stegman B, Dahle TG. Comparative effectiveness of 2 next-generation scatter radiation shielding systems. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4(8):103786. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103786.
  2. Wilson R, Gainor J, Valeti U, Montague J, Wilson B. TCT-248: A new device to markedly reduce cardiac cath lab radiation levels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(13 Suppl):B103. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1376.
  3. Rizik DG, Sutton NR, Lansky AJ, Alasnag M, et al. SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS expert consensus statement on enhanced radiation protection: time for mandatory and urgent action. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2026;5(8):105455. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2026.105455.
  4. Venneri L, et al. Cancer risk from professional exposure in staff working in cardiac catheterization laboratory: insights from the National Research Council's BEIR VII report. Am Heart J. 2009;157(1):118–124. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.009.
  5. Odanovic N, Gonzalez PE, Vora AN. Is Egg ready to leave the nest and fly? J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4:103863. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103863.
  6. Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Guagliumi G, et al. Occupational health risks in cardiac catheterization laboratory workers. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(4):e003273. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003273.
  7. Frizzell J, Gurevich S, Emani S, Guddeti R, Haddox K, Riley R, Henry T, Kereiakes D, Rudick S, Tribble S, Harper R, Bias A, Garcia S. TCT-1061: Comparative effectiveness of a novel scatter radiation shielding system versus standard shielding. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;86:B453. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.09.1260.
  8. Salavitabar A, Vora AN, Altschul D, et al. ALARA+: Summit on radiation and orthopedic risks in fluoroscopic laboratories. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2026;5(4):104166. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.104166.
  9. Vora AN, Hermiller JB, Gupta R, et al. Variability in state-level regulations regarding occupational radiation exposure (Figure 1). J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4(6):103597. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103597.
  10. ACC survey; Nagelhout, CardioServe 2016;40. Rizik D, SCAI 2024. Full citation to be confirmed with marketing before publication.
  11. Tamirisa K, et al. Occupational hazards in cardiac electrophysiology: insights from an HRS member survey. Heart Rhythm. 2025;23:e307–e318. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.10.001.
  12. Wessly P, et al. Radiation realities: radiation safety practices and awareness among interventional echocardiographers in the United States. Structural Heart. 2026;10(2):100785. doi:10.1016/j.shj.2025.100785.
  13. Wilson RF, Steege P, Tao A, Gomez-Cardona D, Gainor JP, Riley RF, Kamen J. Phantom-based evaluation of scatter radiation at clinically relevant positions in fluoroscopy-guided cardiac procedures. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103936.
  14. Riley RF, Kamen J, Tao A, Gomez-Cardona D. Comparative effectiveness of the EggNest Complete shielding system to standard shielding in the cath lab. Am Heart J Plus. 2025;54:100543. doi:10.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100543.
  15. Hutchings J, Mai E, Blay SP, Ballinger C, Riley RF. Incorporating an enhanced radiation protection device into the treatment of ST elevation myocardial infarctions: a single center retrospective analysis. Am Heart J Plus. 2026;68:100816. doi:10.1016/j.ahjo.2026.100816.
  16. Data on file, Egg Medical. Document to be named before publication.
  17. ALARA+ Coalition. Resources and toolkits. ALARA+. alara-plus.org/resources. Accessed 6 October 2026.
  18. Guddeti RR, Schmidt CW, Riley RF, Kamen J, et al. Evaluating standard shielding versus novel enhanced radiation protection devices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Am Heart Assoc. Published online 10 October 2026. doi:10.1161/JAHA.126.050577.