OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare radiation dose and image quality of 320- and 64-MDCT angiography using prospective gating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seventy-four patients underwent 320-MDCT, and 95 patients underwent 64-MDCT. The scan parameters for 320-MDCT were 120 kVp, 400 mA, and gantry rotation of 350 milliseconds; the parameters for 64-MDCT were 120 kVp, 600 mA, and gantry rotation of 350 milliseconds. Effective dose (ED) was calculated from the dose-length product and a conversion factor (k = 0.014 mSv / mGy × cm). Two observers independently assessed image quality using a 3-point scale, where 3 denotes excellent quality and 1 denotes nondiagnostic quality, using a 16-segment model. Discrepancies were settled by consensus. RESULTS: The ED was significantly lower in patients undergoing 320-MDCT angiography, with a median ED of 4.4 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 3.4-6.2 mSv), compared with 64-MDCT angiography, with a median ED of 6.2 mSv (IQR, 5.5-6.9 mSv) (p = 0.0001). In patients with a heart rate of 65 beats/min or less (92%), the median radiation dose using 320-MDCT was 4.1 mSv (IQR, 3.2-6.1 mSv), and that for 64-MDCT angiography was 6.2 mSv (IQR, 5.8-6.9 mSv) (p = 0.0001). In patients with heart rate greater than 65 beats/min (8%), the median dose was higher with 320-MDCT (8.7 mSv; IQR, 5.9-14.3 mSv) than with 64-MDCT (5.8 mSv; IQR, 5.3-6.7 mSv) (p = 0.02). Segmental image quality was significantly better for 320-MDCT (excellent or good quality, 96.66%; nondiagnostic quality, 0.1%) than for 64-MDCT angiography (excellent or good quality, 86%; nondiagnostic quality, 3.33%) (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Image quality was good for both 320- and 64-MDCT angiography. Overall radiation dose was significantly lower in 320-MDCT angiography when the heart rate was 65 beats/min or less. Every effort should be made to control heart rate to minimize radiation dose.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare radiation dose and image quality of 320- and 64-MDCT angiography using prospective gating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seventy-four patients underwent 320-MDCT, and 95 patients underwent 64-MDCT. The scan parameters for 320-MDCT were 120 kVp, 400 mA, and gantry rotation of 350 milliseconds; the parameters for 64-MDCT were 120 kVp, 600 mA, and gantry rotation of 350 milliseconds. Effective dose (ED) was calculated from the dose-length product and a conversion factor (k = 0.014 mSv / mGy × cm). Two observers independently assessed image quality using a 3-point scale, where 3 denotes excellent quality and 1 denotes nondiagnostic quality, using a 16-segment model. Discrepancies were settled by consensus. RESULTS: The ED was significantly lower in patients undergoing 320-MDCT angiography, with a median ED of 4.4 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 3.4-6.2 mSv), compared with 64-MDCT angiography, with a median ED of 6.2 mSv (IQR, 5.5-6.9 mSv) (p = 0.0001). In patients with a heart rate of 65 beats/min or less (92%), the median radiation dose using 320-MDCT was 4.1 mSv (IQR, 3.2-6.1 mSv), and that for 64-MDCT angiography was 6.2 mSv (IQR, 5.8-6.9 mSv) (p = 0.0001). In patients with heart rate greater than 65 beats/min (8%), the median dose was higher with 320-MDCT (8.7 mSv; IQR, 5.9-14.3 mSv) than with 64-MDCT (5.8 mSv; IQR, 5.3-6.7 mSv) (p = 0.02). Segmental image quality was significantly better for 320-MDCT (excellent or good quality, 96.66%; nondiagnostic quality, 0.1%) than for 64-MDCT angiography (excellent or good quality, 86%; nondiagnostic quality, 3.33%) (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Image quality was good for both 320- and 64-MDCT angiography. Overall radiation dose was significantly lower in 320-MDCT angiography when the heart rate was 65 beats/min or less. Every effort should be made to control heart rate to minimize radiation dose.
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michèle Hamon; Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Patrizia Malagutti; Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Rémy Morello; Marco Valgimigli; Martial Hamon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-09-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D B Mark; C L Nelson; R M Califf; F E Harrell; K L Lee; R H Jones; D F Fortin; R S Stack; D D Glower; L R Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Francesca Pugliese; Nico R Mollet; M G Myriam Hunink; Filippo Cademartiri; Koen Nieman; Ron T van Domburg; Willem B Meijboom; Carlos Van Mieghem; Annick C Weustink; Marcel L Dijkshoorn; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brian S Ko; Dennis T L Wong; James D Cameron; Darryl P Leong; Michael Leung; Ian T Meredith; Nitesh Nerlekar; Paul Antonis; Marcus Crossett; John Troupis; Richard Harper; Yuvaraj Malaiapan; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michelle C Williams; Saroj K Golay; Amanda Hunter; Jonathan R Weir-McCall; Lucja Mlynska; Marc R Dweck; Neal G Uren; John H Reid; Steff C Lewis; Colin Berry; Edwin J R van Beek; Giles Roditi; David E Newby; Saeed Mirsadraee Journal: Open Heart Date: 2015-05-19
Authors: Amr Abdelhamed; Shin-Ichi Hisasue; Essam A Nada; Ali M Kassem; Mohammed Abdel-Kareem; Shigeo Horie Journal: Sex Med Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 2.491