Egg Medical

    Why Radiation Protection Matters

    The daily exposure to radiation poses one of the most dangerous occupational hazards to physicians and healthcare workers. 

    Throughout their careers, physicians with high exposure are subjected to an estimated 50mSv - 200mSv of ionizing radiation,1,2 which equates to 2,500 - 10,000 chest X-rays.3

    This can pose significant health risks, such as an increased risk of cancer, cataracts, and hypertension.4

    On a Joint Mission

    Egg Medical is a global leader in radiation protection technologies. 

    In 2025, BIOTRONIK and Egg Medical formed a strategic alliance to improve radiation protection for healthcare workers in the US.

    Product Highlights

    Superior Protection

    EggNest™ Complete offers more effective radiation protection versus Rampart®* and standard shielding.5,6

    Radiation reductions of up to 97% are possible with EggNest Protect,7 and up to >99% with EggNest Complete.5

    Easy to Use

    The EggNest System integrates into the existing lab workflow and can be used in any type of case, offering complete access to the patient.

    For Everyone in the Lab

    EggNest offers total room protection. 

    In a recent study, EggNestTM Complete demonstrated a more inclusive radiation protection compared to Rampart® shielding.6

    Comparison on X-ray Dose Rate Reduction by Riley RF et al. (2025)⁵

    EggNest Complete provided significant radiation protection in all measured positions, while there was no significant protection by Rampart shielding in positions 1, 2, and 6.

    Cath Lab Schematic

    2023 Survey by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI)⁸

     

    Advocacy by SCAI: Shift paradigm away from wearable to non-wearable protection.

    Media

    Radiation Problem
    EggNest Complete Setup

    *Rampart is a trademark of Rampart IC, LLC

    1 Picano E, Vano E. Radiation exposure as an occupational hazard. EuroIntervention. 2012; 8: 649–653. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I6A101
    2 Vaño E, Gonzalez L, Fernandez JM, Alfonso F, Macaya C. Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: a 15-year follow-up. Br J Radiol. 2006; 79: 383–388. doi: 10.1259/bjr/26829723
    3 Venneri L, Rossi F, Botto N, et al. Cancer risk from professional exposure in staff working in cardiac catheterization laboratory: insights from the National Research Council’s Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII Report. Am Heart J. 2009; 157: 118–124. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.009
    4 Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Guagliumi G, Del Greco M, Gaita F, Picano E. Occupational Health Risks in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Workers. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr;9(4):e003273. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003273.
    5 Riley R, Kamen J, Tao A et al. 800.01 Comparative Effectiveness of the EggNest Complete Shielding System to Standard Shielding in the Cath Lab. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2025 Feb, 18 (4_Supplement) S83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2025.01.313
    6 Kidd S, Riley RF, Power J et al. 800.05 A Comparison of Two Next-Generation Scatter Radiation Shielding Systems. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2025 Feb, 18 (4_Supplement) S84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2025.01.315
    7 Wilson et al: A New Device to Markedly Reduce Cardiac Cath Lab Radiation Levels. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72: SUPPL B TCT 248
    8 Abudayyeh, Islam et al. Occupational Health Hazards in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Results of the 2023 SCAI Survey. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024, 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102493