PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the radiation dose and associated image noise of previously suggested calcium scoring protocols using dual-source CT. METHODS:One hundred consecutive patients underwentcoronary calcium scoring using dual-source CT. Patients were randomly assigned to five different protocols: retrospective ECG-gating and tube current reduction to 4% outside the pulsing window at 120 (protocol A) and 100 kV (B), prospective ECG-triggering at 120 (C) and 100 kV (D), and prospective ECG-triggering at 100 kV with attenuation-based tube current modulation (E). Radiation dose parameters and image noise were determined and compared. RESULTS: Protocol A resulted in an effective dose of 1.3 +/- 0.2 mSv, protocol B in 0.8 +/- 0.2 mSv, protocol C in 1.0 +/- 0.2 mSv, protocol D in 0.6 +/- 0.1 mSv, and protocol E in 0.7 +/- 0.1 mSv. Effective doses were significantly lower (P < 0.001) with 100 kV when compared to 120 kV protocols, and were significantly lower (P < 0.001) for prospective versus retrospective ECG-gating. No significant difference was found between protocol D and E. Significant negative correlations were found between the CTDI(vol) and heart rate for both retrospective ECG-gating protocols (protocol A: r = -0.98, P < 0.001; protocol B: r = -0.83, P < 0.001). The mean image noise was 29.0 +/- 6.7 HU, with no significant differences between the five protocols. The image noise was significantly correlated with the body weight (r = 0.21, P < 0.05) and BMI (r = 0.31, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Effective dose of calcium scoring using dual-source CT ranges from 0.6 to 1.3 mSv. Prospective triggering and lower tube voltage significantly reduces the radiation but yield similar image noise.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the radiation dose and associated image noise of previously suggested calcium scoring protocols using dual-source CT. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent coronary calcium scoring using dual-source CT. Patients were randomly assigned to five different protocols: retrospective ECG-gating and tube current reduction to 4% outside the pulsing window at 120 (protocol A) and 100 kV (B), prospective ECG-triggering at 120 (C) and 100 kV (D), and prospective ECG-triggering at 100 kV with attenuation-based tube current modulation (E). Radiation dose parameters and image noise were determined and compared. RESULTS: Protocol A resulted in an effective dose of 1.3 +/- 0.2 mSv, protocol B in 0.8 +/- 0.2 mSv, protocol C in 1.0 +/- 0.2 mSv, protocol D in 0.6 +/- 0.1 mSv, and protocol E in 0.7 +/- 0.1 mSv. Effective doses were significantly lower (P < 0.001) with 100 kV when compared to 120 kV protocols, and were significantly lower (P < 0.001) for prospective versus retrospective ECG-gating. No significant difference was found between protocol D and E. Significant negative correlations were found between the CTDI(vol) and heart rate for both retrospective ECG-gating protocols (protocol A: r = -0.98, P < 0.001; protocol B: r = -0.83, P < 0.001). The mean image noise was 29.0 +/- 6.7 HU, with no significant differences between the five protocols. The image noise was significantly correlated with the body weight (r = 0.21, P < 0.05) and BMI (r = 0.31, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Effective dose of calcium scoring using dual-source CT ranges from 0.6 to 1.3 mSv. Prospective triggering and lower tube voltage significantly reduces the radiation but yield similar image noise.
Authors: Andreas F Kopp; Bernd Ohnesorge; Christoph Becker; Stephen Schröder; Martin Heuschmid; Axel Küttner; Ronald Kuzo; Claus D Claussen Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Jeffrey Carr; Jennifer Clark Nelson; Nathan D Wong; Michael McNitt-Gray; Yadon Arad; David R Jacobs; Stephan Sidney; Diane E Bild; O Dale Williams; Robert C Detrano Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sebastian Leschka; Hans Scheffel; Lotus Desbiolles; Andre Plass; Oliver Gaemperli; Ines Valenta; Lars Husmann; Thomas G Flohr; Michele Genoni; Borut Marincek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: David Matt; Hans Scheffel; Sebastian Leschka; Thomas G Flohr; Borut Marincek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Dieter Ropers; Ulrich Baum; Karsten Pohle; Katharina Anders; Stefan Ulzheimer; Bernd Ohnesorge; Christian Schlundt; Werner Bautz; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A H Mahnken; J E Wildberger; J Simon; R Koos; T G Flohr; S Schaller; R W Günther Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tobias F Jakobs; Bernd J Wintersperger; Peter Herzog; Thomas Flohr; Christoph Suess; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alexander M de Vos; Annemarieke Rutten; Hester J van de Zaag-Loonen; Michiel L Bots; Riksta Dikkers; Robert A Buiskool; Willem P Mali; Daniel D Lubbers; Arend Mosterd; Mathias Prokop; Benno J Rensing; Maarten J Cramer; H Wouter van Es; Frans L Moll; Eric D van de Pavoordt; Pieter A Doevendans; Birgitta K Velthuis; Albert J Mackaay; Felix Zijlstra; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Trials Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 2.279