OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of reduced 80-kV tube voltage with increased 370-mAs tube current on radiation dose, image quality and estimated myocardial blood flow (MBF) of dynamic CT stress myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) in patients with a normal body mass index (BMI) compared with a 100-kV and 300-mAs protocol. METHODS:Thirty patients with a normal BMI (<25 kg/m(2)) with known or suspected coronary artery disease underwent adenosine-stress dual-source dynamic CTP. Patients were randomised to 80-kV/370-mAs (n = 15) or 100-kV/300-mAs (n = 15) imaging. Maximal enhancement and noise of the left ventricular (LV) cavity, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and MBF of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Imaging with 80-kV/370-mAs instead of 100-kV/300-mAs was associated with 40% lower radiation dose (mean dose-length product, 359 ± 66 vs 628 ± 112 mGy[Symbol: see text]cm; P < 0.001 ) with no significant difference in CNR (34.5 ± 13.4 vs 33.5 ± 10.4; P = 0.81) or MBF in non-ischaemic myocardium (0.95 ± 0.20 vs 0.99 ± 0.25 ml/min/g; P = 0.66). Studies obtained using 80-kV/370-mAs were associated with 30.9% higher maximal enhancement (804 ± 204 vs 614 ± 115 HU; P < 0.005), and 31.2% greater noise (22.7 ± 3.5 vs 17.4 ± 2.6; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic CTP using 80-kV/370-mA instead of 100-kV/300-mAs allowed 40% dose reduction without compromising image quality or MBF. Tube voltage of 80-kV should be considered for individuals with a normal BMI. KEY POINTS: • CT stress perfusion imaging (CTP) is increasingly used to assess myocardial function. • Dynamic CTP is feasible at 80-kV in patients with normal BMI. • An 80-kV/370-mAs protocol allows 40% dose reduction compared with 100-kV/300-mAs. • Contrast-to-noise ratio and myocardial blood flow of the two protocols were comparable.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of reduced 80-kV tube voltage with increased 370-mAs tube current on radiation dose, image quality and estimated myocardial blood flow (MBF) of dynamic CT stress myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) in patients with a normal body mass index (BMI) compared with a 100-kV and 300-mAs protocol. METHODS: Thirty patients with a normal BMI (<25 kg/m(2)) with known or suspected coronary artery disease underwent adenosine-stress dual-source dynamic CTP. Patients were randomised to 80-kV/370-mAs (n = 15) or 100-kV/300-mAs (n = 15) imaging. Maximal enhancement and noise of the left ventricular (LV) cavity, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and MBF of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Imaging with 80-kV/370-mAs instead of 100-kV/300-mAs was associated with 40% lower radiation dose (mean dose-length product, 359 ± 66 vs 628 ± 112 mGy[Symbol: see text]cm; P < 0.001 ) with no significant difference in CNR (34.5 ± 13.4 vs 33.5 ± 10.4; P = 0.81) or MBF in non-ischaemic myocardium (0.95 ± 0.20 vs 0.99 ± 0.25 ml/min/g; P = 0.66). Studies obtained using 80-kV/370-mAs were associated with 30.9% higher maximal enhancement (804 ± 204 vs 614 ± 115 HU; P < 0.005), and 31.2% greater noise (22.7 ± 3.5 vs 17.4 ± 2.6; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic CTP using 80-kV/370-mA instead of 100-kV/300-mAs allowed 40% dose reduction without compromising image quality or MBF. Tube voltage of 80-kV should be considered for individuals with a normal BMI. KEY POINTS: • CT stress perfusion imaging (CTP) is increasingly used to assess myocardial function. • Dynamic CTP is feasible at 80-kV in patients with normal BMI. • An 80-kV/370-mAs protocol allows 40% dose reduction compared with 100-kV/300-mAs. • Contrast-to-noise ratio and myocardial blood flow of the two protocols were comparable.
Authors: Andreas H Mahnken; Ernst Klotz; Hubertus Pietsch; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Allmendinger; Ulrike Haberland; Willi A Kalender; Thomas Flohr Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Arthur Nasis; Brian S Ko; Michael C Leung; Paul R Antonis; Dee Nandurkar; Dennis T Wong; Leo Kyi; James D Cameron; John M Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sung Min Ko; Jin Woo Choi; Meong Gun Song; Je Kyoun Shin; Hyun Kun Chee; Hyun Woo Chung; Dong Hun Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-07-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Becker; Florian Schwarz; Roy P Marcus; Martin Greif; Franz von Ziegler; Ron Blankstein; Udo Hoffmann; Wieland H Sommer; Verena S Hoffmann; Thorsten R C Johnson; Hans-Christoph R Becker; Bernd J Wintersperger; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Richard T George; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Julie M Miller; Kakuya Kitagawa; Hyuk-Jae Chang; David A Bluemke; Lewis Becker; Omair Yousuf; John Texter; Albert C Lardo; João A C Lima Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Ron Blankstein; Leon D Shturman; Ian S Rogers; Jose A Rocha-Filho; David R Okada; Ammar Sarwar; Anand V Soni; Hiram Bezerra; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Milena Petranovic; Ricardo Loureiro; Gudrun Feuchtner; Henry Gewirtz; Udo Hoffmann; Wilfred S Mamuya; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marcus C de Jong; Tessa S S Genders; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Adriaan Moelker; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Feger; A Shaban; S Lukas; C Kendziorra; M Rief; E Zimmermann; M Dewey Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Sara Seitun; Alberto Clemente; Ludovico La Grutta; Patrizia Toia; Giuseppe Runza; Massimo Midiri; Erica Maffei Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2017-04
Authors: V-M Sundell; M Kortesniemi; T Siiskonen; A Kosunen; S Rosendahl; L Büermann Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: G J Pelgrim; A Handayani; H Dijkstra; N H J Prakken; R H J A Slart; M Oudkerk; P M A Van Ooijen; R Vliegenthart; P E Sijens Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.411