Background/Objectives: Lead acrylic shields (LASs) enhance radiation protection, with variation of their usage among different specialties. This prospective multicentric observational study aimed to explore patterns of ocular radiation exposure and LAS usage among interventionalists from different disciplines and to assess behavioral dose changes in a longitudinally monitored subgroup. Methods: From July 2019 to July 2020, ocular doses (protected and unprotected) were measured in 15 interventionalists from four specialties (radiology, neuroradiology, cardiology and vascular surgery) across 2286 procedures using thermoluminescent dosimeters. Procedure type, operator position, total body dose, fluoroscopy time, dose area product, LAS usage and dose exceedances were documented. Ocular doses of five interventionalists, who participated in our previous study, allowed a longitudinal comparison of radiation doses and protective behavior. Results: Cumulative annual unprotected ocular doses ranged from 0 to 59 mSv, with five participants exceeding the annual limit of 20 mSv, whereas protected doses (0 to 18 mSv) remained within the limits. Procedural LAS usage was seen in 89% of radiologists and 82% of vascular surgeons. Participants with 100% LAS usage recorded minimal measurable ocular doses, whereas lower LAS compliance resulted in higher ocular doses. Longitudinal subgroup data analyses showed a decrease in ocular dose per procedure in all five participants, suggesting a potential learning effect, without statistical significance. Conclusions: Unprotected ocular doses exceeded the annual occupational eye lens dose limit in several participants, whereas protected doses remained within recommended limits in all participants. No specialty demonstrated universally lower ocular doses, while consistent LAS use proved highly effective in reducing the dose in all groups. Longitudinal findings suggest that structured dose monitoring and repeated training may support behavioral improvements in radiation protection over time.

Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence, classification, and clinical relevance of incidental extracardiovascular findings in pre-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) CT imaging. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center study of 225 patients undergoing pre-TAVI contrast-enhanced, ECG-gated CT scans between 2021 and 2023. Extracardiovascular findings were recorded and categorized into three groups based on presumed clinical relevance: Group A (findings with no need for follow-up), Group B (findings requiring follow-up), and Group C (findings requiring immediate intervention or treatment). Statistical analysis included a descriptive assessment of the overall prevalence of incidental findings and evaluation of age- and sex-related trends using chi-square tests with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons. Results: The study cohort included 225 patients (53.3% male; mean age 79.9 ± 6.2 years, range 58–93). Extracardiovascular incidental findings were detected in 205 patients (91.1%). Among all 478 recorded findings, 82.6% were Group A, 14.4% Group B, and 2.9% Group C. On a per-patient level, 87.1% had at least one Group A finding, 24.9% had at least one Group B, and 6.2% had at least one Group C finding. Older age was associated with more incidental findings, with a significant difference observed between the 70–79 and 80–89 age groups (p = 0.002). No significant sex-related differences were found (p = 0.226). Findings were most frequently located in the abdomen (46.2%) and thorax (37.2%). Among all clinically relevant findings, the thorax was the most commonly affected region: 43.5% of Group B and 78.6% of Group C findings were located in the thorax, followed by the abdomen (33.3% of Group B and 7.1% of Group C findings). Conclusions: Extracardiovascular incidental findings are highly prevalent in pre-TAVI CT imaging and range from benign, age-related changes to potentially serious conditions such as malignancies or infections. Their presence reflects the comorbidity burden of the typical TAVI population and underscores the importance of recognizing non-vascular incidental findings in this clinical setting.