Literature DB >> 23340461

Submillisievert median radiation dose for coronary angiography with a second-generation 320-detector row CT scanner in 107 consecutive patients.

Marcus Y Chen1, Sujata M Shanbhag, Andrew E Arai.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To (a) use a new second-generation wide-volume 320-detector row computed tomographic (CT) scanner to explore optimization of radiation exposure in coronary CT angiography in an unselected and consecutive cohort of patients referred for clinical purposes and (b) compare estimated radiation exposure and image quality with that from a cohort of similar patients who underwent imaging with a previous first-generation CT system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and all subjects provided written consent. Coronary CT angiography was performed in 107 consecutive patients with a new second-generation 320-detector row unit. Estimated radiation exposure and image quality were compared with those from 100 consecutive patients who underwent imaging with a previous first-generation scanner. Effective radiation dose was estimated by multiplying the dose-length product by an effective dose conversion factor of 0.014 mSv/mGy ⋅ cm and reported with size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs). Image quality was evaluated by two independent readers.
RESULTS: The mean age of the 107 patients was 55.4 years ± 12.0 (standard deviation); 57 patients (53.3%) were men. The median body mass index was 27.3 kg/m(2) (range, 18.1-47.2 kg/m(2)); however, 71 patients (66.4%) were overweight, obese, or morbidly obese. A tube potential of 100 kV was used in 97 patients (90.6%), single-volume acquisition was used in 104 (97.2%), and prospective electrocardiographic gating was used in 106 (99.1%). The mean heart rate was 57.1 beats per minute ± 11.2 (range, 34-96 beats per minute), which enabled single-heartbeat scans in 100 patients (93.4%). The median radiation dose was 0.93 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 0.58-1.74 mSv) with the second-generation unit and 2.67 mSv (IQR, 1.68-4.00 mSv) with the first-generation unit (P < .0001). The median SSDE was 6.0 mGy (IQR, 4.1-10.0 mGy) with the second-generation unit and 13.2 mGy (IQR, 10.2-18.6 mGy) with the first-generation unit (P < .0001). Overall, the radiation dose was less than 0.5 mSv for 23 of the 107 CT angiography examinations (21.5%), less than 1 mSv for 58 (54.2%), and less than 4 mSv for 103 (96.3%). All studies were of diagnostic quality, with most having excellent image quality. Three of four image quality indexes were significantly better with the second-generation unit compared with the first-generation unit.
CONCLUSION: The combination of a gantry rotation time of 275 msec, wide volume coverage, iterative reconstruction, automated exposure control, and larger x-ray power generator of the second-generation CT scanner provides excellent image quality over a wide range of body sizes and heart rates at low radiation doses. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122621/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23340461      PMCID: PMC3606544          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  37 in total

1.  Performance of longitudinal and volumetric tube current modulation in a 64-slice CT with different choices of acquisition and reconstruction parameters.

Authors:  Aart J Van der Molen; Raoul M S Joemai; Jacob Geleijns
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 2.685

2.  Assessing kidney function--measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Authors:  Lesley A Stevens; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Andrew S Levey
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-06-08       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Eric J Hall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose.

Authors:  James P Earls; Elise L Berman; Bruce A Urban; Charlene A Curry; Judith L Lane; Robert S Jennings; Colin C McCulloch; Jiang Hsieh; John H Londt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the american heart association committee on cardiovascular imaging and intervention of the council on cardiovascular radiology and intervention, and the councils on clinical cardiology and cardiovascular disease in the young.

Authors:  David A Bluemke; Stephan Achenbach; Matthew Budoff; Thomas C Gerber; Bernard Gersh; L David Hillis; W Gregory Hundley; Warren J Manning; Beth Feller Printz; Matthias Stuber; Pamela K Woodard
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  CT coronary angiography: 256-slice and 320-detector row scanners.

Authors:  Edward M Hsiao; Frank J Rybicki; Michael Steigner
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography.

Authors:  Frank J Rybicki; Hansel J Otero; Michael L Steigner; Gabriel Vorobiof; Leelakrishna Nallamshetty; Dimitrios Mitsouras; Hale Ersoy; Richard T Mather; Philip F Judy; Tianxi Cai; Karl Coyner; Kurt Schultz; Amanda G Whitmore; Marcelo F Di Carli
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography.

Authors:  James K Min; Jonathon Leipsic; Michael J Pencina; Daniel S Berman; Bon-Kwon Koo; Carlos van Mieghem; Andrejs Erglis; Fay Y Lin; Allison M Dunning; Patricia Apruzzese; Matthew J Budoff; Jason H Cole; Farouc A Jaffer; Martin B Leon; Jennifer Malpeso; G B John Mancini; Seung-Jung Park; Robert S Schwartz; Leslee J Shaw; Laura Mauri
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography.

Authors:  Andrew J Einstein; Milena J Henzlova; Sanjay Rajagopalan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-07-18       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial.

Authors:  Matthew J Budoff; David Dowe; James G Jollis; Michael Gitter; John Sutherland; Edward Halamert; Markus Scherer; Raye Bellinger; Arthur Martin; Robert Benton; Augustin Delago; James K Min
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  61 in total

1.  Subtraction coronary CT angiography using second-generation 320-detector row CT.

Authors:  Kunihiro Yoshioka; Ryoichi Tanaka; Kenta Muranaka; Tadashi Sasaki; Takanori Ueda; Takuya Chiba; Kouta Takeda; Tsuyoshi Sugawara
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Radiation dose of second-generation 320-detector row CT.

Authors:  Xue-jiang Qian
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Noninvasive Imaging of Atherosclerotic Plaque Progression: Status of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography.

Authors:  Veit Sandfort; Joao A C Lima; David A Bluemke
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 7.792

4.  Application of Low Tube Voltage, Low-concentration Contrast Agent Using a 320-row CT in Coronary CT Angiography: Evaluation of Image Quality, Radiation Dose and Iodine Intake.

Authors:  Yue-Ying Pan; Shu-Chang Zhou; Yu-Jin Wang; Qian Li; Ting-Ting Zhu; Chun-Xia Liu; Han-Xiong Guan
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2020-03-13

5.  Coronary Artery Disease: Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of CT Perfusion and MR Perfusion Imaging in Comparison with Quantitative Coronary Angiography and SPECT-Multicenter Prospective Trial.

Authors:  Matthias Rief; Marcus Y Chen; Andrea L Vavere; Benjamin Kendziora; Julie M Miller; W Patricia Bandettini; Christopher Cox; Richard T George; João Lima; Marcelo Di Carli; Michail Plotkin; Elke Zimmermann; Michael Laule; Peter Schlattmann; Andrew E Arai; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Accuracy of gantry rotation time of less than 300 ms for modern MDCT systems.

Authors:  Atsushi Fukuda; Pei-Jan Paul Lin; Kosuke Matsubara; Tosiaki Miyati
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-11-22

7.  Image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic accuracy of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary CT angiography at 70 kVp in a clinical setting: comparison with invasive coronary angiography.

Authors:  Long Jiang Zhang; Yining Wang; U Joseph Schoepf; Felix G Meinel; Richard R Bayer; Li Qi; Jian Cao; Chang Sheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Xie Li; Jian Bin Gong; Zhengyu Jin; Guang Ming Lu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Impact of heart rate on diagnostic accuracy of second generation 320-detector computed tomography coronary angiography.

Authors:  Nitesh Nerlekar; Brian S Ko; Arthur Nasis; James D Cameron; Michael Leung; Adam J Brown; Dennis T L Wong; Philip J Ngu; John M Troupis; Sujith K Seneviratne
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-06

9.  The impact of small motion on the visualization of coronary vessels and lesions in cardiac CT: A simulation study.

Authors:  Francisco Contijoch; J Webster Stayman; Elliot R McVeigh
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 10.  Cardiac PET-CT for monitoring medical and interventional therapy in patients with CAD: PET alone versus hybrid PET-CT?

Authors:  Quynh A Truong; Henry Gewirtz
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.