The research behind EggNest^®

Published EggNest data

Papers in peer-reviewed journals that measure EggNest directly.

• Reference 20

  Evaluating standard shielding versus novel enhanced radiation protection devices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory

  Guddeti RR, Schmidt CW, Riley RF, Kamen J, et al. J Am Heart Assoc. Published online 10 October 2026. doi:10.1161/JAHA.126.050577.

  Dose to the operator, assistant and circulating nurse in 135 real-world coronary cases, comparing standard shielding, EggNest Protect and EggNest Complete, with standard and ultralight aprons.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY-NC-ND.

  Read the full text at JAHA Findings on the Evidence page
• Reference 16

  Incorporating an enhanced radiation protection device into the treatment of ST elevation myocardial infarctions: a single center retrospective analysis

  Hutchings J, Mai E, Blay SP, Ballinger C, Riley RF. Am Heart J Plus. 2026;68:100816. doi:10.1016/j.ahjo.2026.100816.

  Door-to-balloon time for 133 consecutive STEMI patients at one center, treated in a cath lab with EggNest Complete or in labs with standard shielding.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY 4.0.

  Read the full text at AHJ Plus Findings on the Evidence page
• Reference 1

  Comparative effectiveness of 2 next-generation scatter radiation shielding systems

  Riley RF, Kidd S, Power J, Stegman B, Dahle TG. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4(8):103786. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103786.

  Scatter at five staff positions, comparing no shielding, the Rampart IC system and EggNest Complete.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY 4.0.

  Read the full text at JSCAI Findings on the Evidence page
• Reference 14

  Comparative effectiveness of the EggNest Complete shielding system to standard shielding in the cath lab

  Riley RF, Kamen J, Tao A, Gomez-Cardona D. Am Heart J Plus. 2025;54:100543. doi:10.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100543.

  Scatter at six staff positions and five C-arm angulations, comparing no shielding, standard cath lab shielding and EggNest Complete.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

  Read the full text at AHJ Plus Findings on the Evidence page

Other publications of interest

• Reference 15

  Keeping everyone safe in the cath lab: “cracking” the code on radiation safety for all during complex PCI

  Riley RF. Cardiac Interventions Today. May/June 2025;19(3):17–20. Sponsored by Shockwave Medical.

  One complex coronary case, a chronic total occlusion, in a lab fitted with EggNest Complete, with every team member wearing a real-time dosimetry badge.

  Full text, freeFree to read on the publisher’s site. It has no DOI.

  Read the full text at Cardiac Interventions Today Findings on the Evidence page
• Reference 5

  Is Egg ready to leave the nest and fly?

  Odanovic N, Gonzalez PE, Vora AN. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4(8):103863. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103863.

  A JSCAI editorial on EggNest, published in the same issue as reference 1.

  What it argues

  That reference 1 shows substantial protection from both systems, for staff as well as operators, but that comparing each against no shielding may overstate the difference, and that a phantom study with no agreed method could favor EggNest. It ends with a rough yearly dose estimate for a high-volume operator, given on the Evidence page.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

  Read the full text at JSCAI Its entry on the Evidence page
• Reference 13

  Phantom-based evaluation of scatter radiation at clinically relevant positions in fluoroscopy-guided cardiac procedures

  Wilson RF, Steege P, Tao A, Gomez-Cardona D, Gainor JP, Riley RF, Kamen J. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025;4(11):103936. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103936.

  Unshielded scatter at six staff positions around a phantom, proposed as a standard method for testing shielding systems. No Egg Medical product was used.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY 4.0.

  Read the full text at JSCAI Findings on the Evidence page

Society guidance

Two publications from the professional societies.

• Reference 3

  SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS expert consensus statement on enhanced radiation protection: time for mandatory and urgent action

  Rizik DG, Sutton NR, Lansky AJ, Alasnag M, et al. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2026;5(8):105455. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2026.105455.

  The multi-society statement on enhanced radiation protection devices, endorsed by SCAI, ACC, ASE, HRS, SIR and SVS.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

  Read the full text at JSCAI What it says, on the Evidence page
• Reference 8

  ALARA+: Summit on radiation and orthopedic risks in fluoroscopic laboratories

  Salavitabar A, Vora AN, Altschul D, et al. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2026;5(4):104166. doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.104166.

  Proceedings of the ALARA+ summit at the 2025 SCAI Scientific Sessions, with 11 organizations represented, on radiation and orthopedic risk in fluoroscopic labs.

  Full text, freeOpen access at the journal, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

  Read the full text at JSCAI What it says, on the Evidence page