Anisa Mnyusiwalla1, Richard I Aviv, Sean P Symons. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Neuroradiology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the radiation dose delivered during comprehensive computed tomography (CT) imaging for acute stroke. METHODS: All CT examinations performed over 18 months using our acute stroke protocol were included. Protocol includes an unenhanced CT head, CT angiography from the arch to vertex, CT perfusion/permeability, and an enhanced CT head. All imaging was acquired with a 64-MDCT. Examinations where any element of the protocol was repeated or omitted due to mistimed injection or patient motion were excluded. Dose-length products (DLP) for all components of each examination were obtained from dose reports generated at the time of acquisition, separating neck, and head calculations. Effective doses for each examination were calculated using the DLP and normalized values of effective dose per DLP appropriate for the body regions imaged. RESULTS: Ninety-five examinations were included. Mean DLP was 6,790.0 mGy x cm. Effective doses ranged from 11.8 to 27.3 mSv, mean effective dose of 16.4 mSv. Mean effective dose for acquisition of the unenhanced head was 2.7 mSv. Largest contribution to effective dose was the CTA with a mean effective dose of 5.4 mSv. Mean effective dose for the CT perfusion was 4.9 mSv. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive CT acute stroke protocol delivered a mean effective dose of 16.4 mSv, which is approximately six times the dose of an unenhanced CT head. These high-dose results must be balanced with the benefits of the detailed anatomic and physiologic data obtained. Centers should implement aggressive dose reduction strategies and freely use MR as a substitute.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the radiation dose delivered during comprehensive computed tomography (CT) imaging for acute stroke. METHODS: All CT examinations performed over 18 months using our acute stroke protocol were included. Protocol includes an unenhanced CT head, CT angiography from the arch to vertex, CT perfusion/permeability, and an enhanced CT head. All imaging was acquired with a 64-MDCT. Examinations where any element of the protocol was repeated or omitted due to mistimed injection or patient motion were excluded. Dose-length products (DLP) for all components of each examination were obtained from dose reports generated at the time of acquisition, separating neck, and head calculations. Effective doses for each examination were calculated using the DLP and normalized values of effective dose per DLP appropriate for the body regions imaged. RESULTS: Ninety-five examinations were included. Mean DLP was 6,790.0 mGy x cm. Effective doses ranged from 11.8 to 27.3 mSv, mean effective dose of 16.4 mSv. Mean effective dose for acquisition of the unenhanced head was 2.7 mSv. Largest contribution to effective dose was the CTA with a mean effective dose of 5.4 mSv. Mean effective dose for the CT perfusion was 4.9 mSv. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive CT acute stroke protocol delivered a mean effective dose of 16.4 mSv, which is approximately six times the dose of an unenhanced CT head. These high-dose results must be balanced with the benefits of the detailed anatomic and physiologic data obtained. Centers should implement aggressive dose reduction strategies and freely use MR as a substitute.
Authors: E Cardis; M Vrijheid; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; F Bermann; G Cowper; J Fix; C Hacker; B Heinmiller; M Marshall; I Thierry-Chef; D Utterback; Y-O Ahn; E Amoros; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; J Bernar; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklöf; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R R Habib; K Holan; H Hyvonen; A Kerekes; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Martuzzi; A Mastauskas; A Monnet; M Moser; M S Pearce; D B Richardson; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: A E Baird; K O Lövblad; J F Dashe; A Connor; C Burzynski; G Schlaug; I Straroselskaya; R R Edelman; S Warach Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Mark E Mullins; Pamela W Schaefer; A Gregory Sorensen; Elkan F Halpern; Hakan Ay; Julian He; Walter J Koroshetz; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Richard I Aviv; Christopher D d'Esterre; Blake D Murphy; Julia J Hopyan; Brian Buck; Gabriella Mallia; Vivian Li; Liying Zhang; Sean P Symons; Ting-Yim Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K O Lövblad; H J Laubach; A E Baird; F Curtin; G Schlaug; R R Edelman; S Warach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A E Othman; S Afat; C Brockmann; O Nikoubashman; G Bier; M A Brockmann; K Nikolaou; J H Tai; Z P Yang; J H Kim; M Wiesmann Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: J Ivanidze; R A Charalel; I Shuryak; D Brenner; A Pandya; O N Kallas; K Kesavabhotla; A Z Segal; M S Simon; P C Sanelli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Branko N Huisa; William P Neil; Ronald Schrader; Marcel Maya; Benedict Pereira; Nhu T Bruce; Patrick D Lyden Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: A Morotti; J M Romero; M J Jessel; H B Brouwers; R Gupta; K Schwab; A Vashkevich; A Ayres; C D Anderson; M E Gurol; A Viswanathan; S M Greenberg; J Rosand; J N Goldstein Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.825