PURPOSE: The authors sought to compare different algorithms for dose reduction in retrospectively echocardiographically (ECG)-gated dual-source computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography (DSCT-CA) in a phantom model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Weighted CT dose index (CTDI) was measured by using an anthropomorphic phantom in spiral cardiac mode (retrospective ECG gating) at five pitch values adapted with two heart-rate-adaptive ECG pulsing windows using four algorithms: narrow pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (A) and 4% (B) of peak current outside the pulsing window; wide pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (C) and 4% (D). Each algorithm was applied at different heart rates (45, 60, 75, 90, 120 bpm). RESULTS: Mean CTDI volume (CTDIvol) was 36.9+/-9.7 mGy, 23.9+/-5.6 mGy, 49.7+/-16.2 mGy and 38.5+/-12.3 mGy for A, B, C and D, respectively. Consistent dose reduction was observed with protocols applying the 4% tube current reduction (B and D). Using the conversion coefficient for the chest, the mean effective dose was the highest for C (9.6 mSv) and the lowest for B (4.6 mSv). Heart-ratedependent pitch values (pitch=0.2, 0.26, 0.34, 0.43, 0.5) and the use of heart-rate-adaptive ECG pulsing windows provided a significant decrease in the CTDIvol with progressively higher heart rates (45, 60, 75, 90, 120 bpm), despite using wider pulsing windows. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation exposure with DSCT-CA using a narrow pulsing window significantly decreases when compared with a wider pulsing window. When using a protocol with reduced tube current to 4%, the radiation dose is significantly lower.
PURPOSE: The authors sought to compare different algorithms for dose reduction in retrospectively echocardiographically (ECG)-gated dual-source computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography (DSCT-CA) in a phantom model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Weighted CT dose index (CTDI) was measured by using an anthropomorphic phantom in spiral cardiac mode (retrospective ECG gating) at five pitch values adapted with two heart-rate-adaptive ECG pulsing windows using four algorithms: narrow pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (A) and 4% (B) of peak current outside the pulsing window; wide pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (C) and 4% (D). Each algorithm was applied at different heart rates (45, 60, 75, 90, 120 bpm). RESULTS: Mean CTDI volume (CTDIvol) was 36.9+/-9.7 mGy, 23.9+/-5.6 mGy, 49.7+/-16.2 mGy and 38.5+/-12.3 mGy for A, B, C and D, respectively. Consistent dose reduction was observed with protocols applying the 4% tube current reduction (B and D). Using the conversion coefficient for the chest, the mean effective dose was the highest for C (9.6 mSv) and the lowest for B (4.6 mSv). Heart-ratedependent pitch values (pitch=0.2, 0.26, 0.34, 0.43, 0.5) and the use of heart-rate-adaptive ECG pulsing windows provided a significant decrease in the CTDIvol with progressively higher heart rates (45, 60, 75, 90, 120 bpm), despite using wider pulsing windows. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation exposure with DSCT-CA using a narrow pulsing window significantly decreases when compared with a wider pulsing window. When using a protocol with reduced tube current to 4%, the radiation dose is significantly lower.
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger; Alexander W Leber; Franz von Ziegler; Carsten Rist; Sonja Buhmann; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-05-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew N Primak; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael R Bruesewitz; Jie Zhang; Joel G Fletcher Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
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: A Kuettner; T Beck; T Drosch; K Kettering; M Heuschmid; C Burgstahler; C D Claussen; A F Kopp; S Schroeder Journal: Heart Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: M Francone; A Napoli; I Carbone; M Cavacece; P G Nardis; K Lanciotti; S Visconti; L Bertoletti; E Di Castro; C Catalano; R Passariello Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ulrike Ropers; Dieter Ropers; Tobias Pflederer; Katharina Anders; Axel Kuettner; Nikolaos I Stilianakis; Sei Komatsu; Willi Kalender; Werner Bautz; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Manuel Belgrano; Paola Bregant; Micheline Fute Djoguela; William Toscano; Elena Marchese; Maria A Cova Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; S Seitun; T Arcadi; C Tedeschi; A Guaricci; R Malagò; G Tarantini; A Aldrovandi; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; T Arcadi; A Guaricci; S Seitun; A Weustink; N Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; T Arcadi; A Guaricci; S Seitun; A C Weustink; N R Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; T Arcadi; A Guaricci; S Seitun; A Weustink; N Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-03-19 Impact factor: 3.469