Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the best available evidence on the effect of various radiation protection strategies on radiation dose received by proceduralists performing cardiac catheterization procedures involving fluoroscopy. Introduction: Cardiac catheterization procedures under fluoroscopy are the gold standard diagnostic and treatment method for patients with coronary artery disease. The growing demand of procedures means that proceduralists are being exposed to increasing amounts of radiation, resulting in an increased risk of deterministic and stochastic effects. Standard protective strategies and equipment such as lead garments reduce radiation exposure; however, the evidence surrounding additional equipment is contradictory. Inclusion criteria: Randomized controlled trials that compared the use of an additional radiation protection strategy with conventional radiation protection methods were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome of interest was the radiation dose received by the proceduralist during cardiac catheterization procedures. Methods: A three-step search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). Trials published in the English language with adult participants were included. Trials published from database inception until July 2019 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for randomized controlled trials. Quantitative data were extracted from the included papers using the JBI data extraction tool. Results that could not be pooled in meta-analysis were reported in a narrative form. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included in the review. Six radiation protection strategies were assessed: Leaded and unleaded pelvic or arm drapes, transradial protection board, remotely controlled mechanical contrast injector, extension tubing for contrast injection, real-time radiation monitor, and a reduction in frame rate to 7.5 frames per second. Pooled data from two trials demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the mean radiation dose (P<0.00001) received by proceduralists performing transfemoral cardiac catheterization on patients who received a leaded pelvic drape compared to standard protection. One trial that compared the use of unleaded pelvic drapes placed on patients compared to standard protection reported a statistically significant decrease (P=0.004) in the mean radiation dose received by proceduralists. Compared to standard protection, two trials that used unleaded arm drapes for patients, one trial that used a remotely controlled mechanical contrast injector, and one trial that used a transradial protection board demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the radiation dose received by proceduralists. Similarly, using a frame rate of 7.5 versus 15 frames per second and monitoring radiation dose in real-time radiation significantly lowered the radiation dose received by the proceduralist. One trial demonstrated no statistically significant difference in proceduralist radiation dose among those who used the extension tubing compared to standard protection (P=1). Conclusions: This reviewprovides evidence to support the use of leaded pelvic drapes for patients as an additional radiation protection strategy for proceduralists performing transradial or transfemoral cardiac catheterization. Further studies on the effectiveness of using a lower fluoroscopy framerate, real-timeradiationmonitor, and transradial protection board are needed.