Hyun Woo Goo1, Hyum Woo Goo, Dong Soo Suh. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Centre, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Poongnap-2dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, South Korea. hwgoo@amc.seoul.kr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dose reduction by combined tube current modulation has not been evaluated in pediatric low-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate tube current reduction in non-ECG-gated heart CT angiography in children by combined tube current modulation, and to assess the effects of body weight, age, sex, and scan direction on tube current reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2004 to January 2005, non-ECG-gated heart CT examinations were performed with combined tube current modulation in 50 children (median age 1 year, range 1 month to 16 years; M/F 29/21) with congenital heart disease. Sixteen-slice spiral CT studies were obtained using a weight-based low-dose protocol (80 kVp, 50-160 effective mA). CT scans were obtained in the craniocaudal direction when leg veins (n=36) were used for IV injection of contrast agent and in the caudocranial direction when arm veins (n=13) were used. In one child who underwent a Fontan operation, both arm and leg veins were used. We calculated tube current reduction by combined tube current modulation and evaluated the effects of body weight, age, sex, and scan technique on tube current reduction. The quality of CT angiography images was visually evaluated by an experienced pediatric radiologist. RESULTS: Overall tube current reduction by combined tube current modulation was 15.8+/-11.1%. The reduction was variable among five body weight groups (9.3+/-7.9% for <4.9 kg, 14.3+/-9.3% for 5.0-9.9 kg, 16.4+/-12.5% for 10.0-19.9 kg, 25.8+/-9.8% for 20.0-39.9 kg, 15.9+/-12.7% for 40.0-59.9 kg) and was significantly different among the five groups (P=0.017). When eight children in the 40.0-59.9-kg group were excluded, age showed a significant positive correlation with tube current reduction (gamma=0.4, P=0.003). There was no significant difference in tube current reduction between boys and girls. Tube current reduction was significantly greater for the caudocranial scan (21.2+/-9.2%) than for the craniocaudal scan (14.2+/-11.3%) (P=0.049). All CT angiography images were of diagnostic quality. CONCLUSIONS: Combined tube current modulation reduced tube current in pediatric non-ECG-gated heart CT by 15.8% without degradation of image quality. With our CT protocol, for body weights up to 39.9 kg, age showed a significant positive correlation with tube current reduction, but there was a lower dose-saving effect in children heavier than 40 kg. Tube current reduction was not affected by sex, but was affected by scan direction.
BACKGROUND: Dose reduction by combined tube current modulation has not been evaluated in pediatric low-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate tube current reduction in non-ECG-gated heart CT angiography in children by combined tube current modulation, and to assess the effects of body weight, age, sex, and scan direction on tube current reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2004 to January 2005, non-ECG-gated heart CT examinations were performed with combined tube current modulation in 50 children (median age 1 year, range 1 month to 16 years; M/F 29/21) with congenital heart disease. Sixteen-slice spiral CT studies were obtained using a weight-based low-dose protocol (80 kVp, 50-160 effective mA). CT scans were obtained in the craniocaudal direction when leg veins (n=36) were used for IV injection of contrast agent and in the caudocranial direction when arm veins (n=13) were used. In one child who underwent a Fontan operation, both arm and leg veins were used. We calculated tube current reduction by combined tube current modulation and evaluated the effects of body weight, age, sex, and scan technique on tube current reduction. The quality of CT angiography images was visually evaluated by an experienced pediatric radiologist. RESULTS: Overall tube current reduction by combined tube current modulation was 15.8+/-11.1%. The reduction was variable among five body weight groups (9.3+/-7.9% for <4.9 kg, 14.3+/-9.3% for 5.0-9.9 kg, 16.4+/-12.5% for 10.0-19.9 kg, 25.8+/-9.8% for 20.0-39.9 kg, 15.9+/-12.7% for 40.0-59.9 kg) and was significantly different among the five groups (P=0.017). When eight children in the 40.0-59.9-kg group were excluded, age showed a significant positive correlation with tube current reduction (gamma=0.4, P=0.003). There was no significant difference in tube current reduction between boys and girls. Tube current reduction was significantly greater for the caudocranial scan (21.2+/-9.2%) than for the craniocaudal scan (14.2+/-11.3%) (P=0.049). All CT angiography images were of diagnostic quality. CONCLUSIONS: Combined tube current modulation reduced tube current in pediatric non-ECG-gated heart CT by 15.8% without degradation of image quality. With our CT protocol, for body weights up to 39.9 kg, age showed a significant positive correlation with tube current reduction, but there was a lower dose-saving effect in children heavier than 40 kg. Tube current reduction was not affected by sex, but was affected by scan direction.
Authors: Thomas G Flohr; Stefan Schaller; Karl Stierstorfer; Herbert Bruder; Bernd M Ohnesorge; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marco Das; Andreas Horst Mahnken; Georg Mühlenbruch; Achim Stargardt; Claudia Weiss; Dirk-Alexander Sennst; Thomas G Flohr; Rolf W Günther; Joachim Ernst Wildberger Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stefania M R Rizzo; Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Michael A Blake; Thomas L Toth; Sanjay Saini Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter K T Hui; Hyun Woo Goo; Jing Du; Janice J K Ip; Suzu Kanzaki; Young Jin Kim; Supika Kritsaneepaiboon; Oktavia Lilyasari; Suvipaporn Siripornpitak Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-04-24