ABC | Volume 112, Nº4, April 2019

Original Article Barbosa et al Prevalence of lens opacity Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019; 112(4):392-399 Figure 1 – Flowchart of the study. G1 G2 156 122 112 88 • 23 foreigners; • 16 did not complete the study; • 04 diabetics. • 25 did not undergo ophthalmologic examination; • 08 using corticoids, diabetics, previous surgery. EXCLUDED Table 1 – Sociodemographic data of the volunteers G1 G2 Age (mean) 44.95 (±10.23) 48.07 (±12.18) Age range <36 28 (21.9%) 18 (20.5%) 36-45 45 (35.4%) 14 (15.9%) 46-55 37 (32.7%) 29 (33%) 56-65 10 (8.8%) 22 (25%) >66 4 (3.5%) 5 (5.7%) Sex Female 24 (21.4%) 14 (15.9%) Male 88 (78.6%) 74 (84.1%) Region Middle-west 7 (6.4%) 10 (11.4%) North 6 (5.5%) 5 (5.7%) Northeast 20 (18.2%) 22 (25%) South 11 (10%) 11 (12.5%) Southeast 66 (60%) 40 (45.6%) Occupation Nurse 21 (18.6%) 1 (1.1%) Physician 85 (75.2%) 75 (85.2%) Nurse technician or nursing assistant 3 (3.1%) 11 (12.5%) Technician or technologist 3 (2.7%) 1 (1.1%) Total 112 88 lens opacity; 62% of the professionals reported less than 20 years of work years, and half of them reported between 5 and 10 years of work in the field. Although we did not find a correlation between damage and work experience time, lens opacity could occur early in those with lower time of work experience. This reinforces the importance of the use of personal and collective protective devices. Results of the use of personal and collective protective devices reported by the physicians are described in Figures 3,4 and 5. Regarding the use of lead glasses (with or without lateral protection) 40% of the radiation-exposed volunteers reported to be regular users, although this result did not show a statistically significant correlation with the frequency of lens opacity. The same was observed with the routine use of lead shielding, reported by approximately 30% of the professionals. The reasons for the low frequency of routine use of protective devices, reported by participants, are graphically illustrated in Figures 1-3, such as – ergonomic discomfort, unavailability of protective device, among others. Discussion ICs and other professionals that work in hemodynamics are routinely exposed to ionizing radiation and hence at higher risk for the deleterious effects of this exposure. Eye lens are one of the most sensitive organs to continuous radiation exposure. Many studies in several countries have shown a higher prevalence of cataract in professionals exposed to 394