PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to estimate surplus radiation dose in retrospectively electrocardiography (ECG)-gated dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography (DSCT-CA) due to the slope-up and slope-down of the tube current using prospectively ECG-triggered tube modulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used an anthropomorphic phantom with an ECG-gated retrospective protocol and a DSCT scanner (Definition, Siemens). We used four tube current modulation algorithms: narrow pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (A) and 4% (B) of peak current; and wide pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (C) and 4% (D). Each algorithm was applied at five heart rates (HR=45, 60, 75, 90 and 120 bpm) with adaptive pitch values (0.2-0.5). Data sets were reconstructed in 5% increments from 0-95% of the R-R interval. Noise was measured at each R-R step in order to identify low noise (100% dose), medium noise (slope-up/down) and high noise (4/20% dose). Width of the transition window (slope-up/slope-down from 4/20% to 100% dose) was calculated. The surplus dose due to slope-up/slope-down was calculated. RESULTS: Surplus dose was 19% (A), 34% (B), 14% (C) and 21% (D). The transition window lasted 10%+10% (slope-up + down) for HR <75 bpm and all HR in C (except for 120 bpm; 25%+15%), 15%+15% for HR >90 bpm (A). For C and D, instead, the slope-up increased with progressively higher HR (10%-25% of the R-R interval, except for 90 bpm, 10%), whereas the slope-down remained constant at 5% (except for 120 bpm; 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive ECG-pulsing windows produced an increment of the surplus dose with increasing HR. The transition window was a constant source of surplus radiation dose in the range of 14%-34%.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to estimate surplus radiation dose in retrospectively electrocardiography (ECG)-gated dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography (DSCT-CA) due to the slope-up and slope-down of the tube current using prospectively ECG-triggered tube modulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used an anthropomorphic phantom with an ECG-gated retrospective protocol and a DSCT scanner (Definition, Siemens). We used four tube current modulation algorithms: narrow pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (A) and 4% (B) of peak current; and wide pulsing window, with tube current reduction to 20% (C) and 4% (D). Each algorithm was applied at five heart rates (HR=45, 60, 75, 90 and 120 bpm) with adaptive pitch values (0.2-0.5). Data sets were reconstructed in 5% increments from 0-95% of the R-R interval. Noise was measured at each R-R step in order to identify low noise (100% dose), medium noise (slope-up/down) and high noise (4/20% dose). Width of the transition window (slope-up/slope-down from 4/20% to 100% dose) was calculated. The surplus dose due to slope-up/slope-down was calculated. RESULTS: Surplus dose was 19% (A), 34% (B), 14% (C) and 21% (D). The transition window lasted 10%+10% (slope-up + down) for HR <75 bpm and all HR in C (except for 120 bpm; 25%+15%), 15%+15% for HR >90 bpm (A). For C and D, instead, the slope-up increased with progressively higher HR (10%-25% of the R-R interval, except for 90 bpm, 10%), whereas the slope-down remained constant at 5% (except for 120 bpm; 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive ECG-pulsing windows produced an increment of the surplus dose with increasing HR. The transition window was a constant source of surplus radiation dose in the range of 14%-34%.
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: 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