BACKGROUND: Medical radiation exposure is a major concern, and several methods have been proposed to reduce radiation doses in multidetector cardiac computed tomography (CT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review radiation doses of clinical cardiac CT performed at our center and to evaluate the effect of radiation dose reduction strategies on the median dose delivered to patients over time. METHODS: This study included 623 consecutive clinical patients (male, 58%) who were referred for imaging. The effective dose (mSv) was derived from the product of the dose-length-product (DLP) and a conversion coefficient for the chest (0.014). RESULTS: The median radiation dose of all patients was 3.0 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-8.1 mSv). A significant difference was observed in radiation dose between the prospective (n = 384) and retrospective (n = 239) gating groups (2.0 vs 9.6 mSv; P < 0.0001). Compared with patients with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; n = 52), patients without CABG had significantly lower median radiation dose (prospective gating: 2.0 vs 3.4 mSv, P < 0.0001; retrospective gating: 9.3 vs 10.3 mSv, P < 0.0001). In patients with CABG, a significant difference was observed in radiation dose between prospective and retrospective gating (3.4 vs 10.3; P < 0.0001). The median radiation doses per month at our center decreased from 6.2 to 2.1 mSv over time with increasing use of prospective gating (≤91%). CONCLUSION: Radiation reduction techniques have led to progressive decreases in radiation exposure over time, primarily because of prospective gating.
BACKGROUND: Medical radiation exposure is a major concern, and several methods have been proposed to reduce radiation doses in multidetector cardiac computed tomography (CT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review radiation doses of clinical cardiac CT performed at our center and to evaluate the effect of radiation dose reduction strategies on the median dose delivered to patients over time. METHODS: This study included 623 consecutive clinical patients (male, 58%) who were referred for imaging. The effective dose (mSv) was derived from the product of the dose-length-product (DLP) and a conversion coefficient for the chest (0.014). RESULTS: The median radiation dose of all patients was 3.0 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-8.1 mSv). A significant difference was observed in radiation dose between the prospective (n = 384) and retrospective (n = 239) gating groups (2.0 vs 9.6 mSv; P < 0.0001). Compared with patients with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; n = 52), patients without CABG had significantly lower median radiation dose (prospective gating: 2.0 vs 3.4 mSv, P < 0.0001; retrospective gating: 9.3 vs 10.3 mSv, P < 0.0001). In patients with CABG, a significant difference was observed in radiation dose between prospective and retrospective gating (3.4 vs 10.3; P < 0.0001). The median radiation doses per month at our center decreased from 6.2 to 2.1 mSv over time with increasing use of prospective gating (≤91%). CONCLUSION: Radiation reduction techniques have led to progressive decreases in radiation exposure over time, primarily because of prospective gating.
Authors: Paul M Madaj; Matthew J Budoff; Dong Li; John A Tayek; Ronald P Karlsberg; Harold L Karpman Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kathleen M Capaccione; Sophia Huang; Jay S Leb; Belinda D'souza; Jonathan Goldstein; Mary M Salvatore Journal: Radiol Res Pract Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Moshrik Abd Alamir; Susan S Ellenberg; Ronald S Swerdloff; Nanette K Wenger; Emile R Mohler; Cora E Lewis; Elizabeth Barrett-Conner; Rine Nakanishi; Sirous Darabian; Anas Alani; Suguru Matsumoto; Negin Nezarat; Peter J Snyder; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 1.439
Authors: Toon Van Cauteren; Gert Van Gompel; Kaoru Tanaka; Douwe E Verdries; Dries Belsack; Koenraad H Nieboer; Inneke Willekens; Paul Evans; Sven Macholl; Guy Verfaillie; Steven Droogmans; Johan de Mey; Nico Buls Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 3.411