Atif N Khan1, Faisal Khosa2, Waqas Shuaib2, Khurram Nasir3, Ron Blankstein4, Melvin Clouse1. 1. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Department of Cardiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the following study is to evaluate the effect of reducing tube voltage from 120 to 100 kVp using prospective gating 320 row multi-detector computed tomography angiography on image quality and reduction in radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 78 sequential patients were scanned with prospective electrocardiogram gating. A total of 45 patients (Group 1) with mean body mass index (BMI) 29 ± 2 and heart rate (HR) 57 ± 7 beats per minute (BPM) were scanned at 120 kVp. 33 patients (Group 2) with mean BMI 23 ± 3 and HR 58 ± 6 bpm were scanned at 100 kVp. Effective dose was calculated using dose length product and factor (k = 0.014). Quantitative assessment of image quality was calculated by measuring signal to noise ratio (SNR) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR) in the left ventricle and left main coronary artery. Two experienced cardiac radiologists using a three-point ordinal scale assessed subjectively image quality. RESULTS: In Group 1, the median radiation dose was 5.31 mSv (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.86-6.09) and for Group 2 (P = 0.009) the mean radiation dose was 3.71 mSv (95% CI: 2.76-4.87), representing 30% decrease in radiation dose. In multivariate analyses, adjusting for age, gender, HR, BMI, tube current and scan length, an absolute median reduction of 2.21 mSv (1.13-3.29 mSv) was noted in patients scanned with 100 kVp (P < 0.0001). The quantitative image quality (SNR and CNR) was not statistically significant between the groups. Subjective image quality was rated as good or excellent in 99% of coronary segments for both groups (P value was considered as non-significant). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that radiation dose may be lowered from 120 to 100 kVp with preservation of image quality in patient's whose BMI is ≤27.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the following study is to evaluate the effect of reducing tube voltage from 120 to 100 kVp using prospective gating 320 row multi-detector computed tomography angiography on image quality and reduction in radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 78 sequential patients were scanned with prospective electrocardiogram gating. A total of 45 patients (Group 1) with mean body mass index (BMI) 29 ± 2 and heart rate (HR) 57 ± 7 beats per minute (BPM) were scanned at 120 kVp. 33 patients (Group 2) with mean BMI 23 ± 3 and HR 58 ± 6 bpm were scanned at 100 kVp. Effective dose was calculated using dose length product and factor (k = 0.014). Quantitative assessment of image quality was calculated by measuring signal to noise ratio (SNR) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR) in the left ventricle and left main coronary artery. Two experienced cardiac radiologists using a three-point ordinal scale assessed subjectively image quality. RESULTS: In Group 1, the median radiation dose was 5.31 mSv (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.86-6.09) and for Group 2 (P = 0.009) the mean radiation dose was 3.71 mSv (95% CI: 2.76-4.87), representing 30% decrease in radiation dose. In multivariate analyses, adjusting for age, gender, HR, BMI, tube current and scan length, an absolute median reduction of 2.21 mSv (1.13-3.29 mSv) was noted in patients scanned with 100 kVp (P < 0.0001). The quantitative image quality (SNR and CNR) was not statistically significant between the groups. Subjective image quality was rated as good or excellent in 99% of coronary segments for both groups (P value was considered as non-significant). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that radiation dose may be lowered from 120 to 100 kVp with preservation of image quality in patient's whose BMI is ≤27.
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: Andrew J Einstein; Carl D Elliston; Andrew E Arai; Marcus Y Chen; Richard Mather; Gregory D N Pearson; Robert L Delapaz; Edward Nickoloff; Ajoy Dutta; David J Brenner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Tobias Goroll; Martin Seltmann; Tobias Pflederer; Katharina Anders; Dieter Ropers; Werner G Daniel; Michael Uder; Michael Lell; Mohamed Marwan Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-04
Authors: Bernhard A Herzog; Lars Husmann; Nina Burkhard; Ines Valenta; Oliver Gaemperli; Fuminari Tatsugami; Christophe A Wyss; Uif Landmesser; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Todd M Brown; Mercedes Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Cathleen Gillespie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; P Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary M McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Véronique L Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Chevis N Shannon; Tamara D Simon; Gavin T Reed; Frank A Franklin; Russell S Kirby; Meredith L Kilgore; John C Wellons Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Sock Keow Tan; Chai Hong Yeong; Raja Rizal Azman Raja Aman; Kwan Hoong Ng; Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz; Kok Han Chee; Zhonghua Sun Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Philip V M Linsen; Adriaan Coenen; Marisa M Lubbers; Marcel L Dijkshoorn; Mohamed Ouhlous; Koen Nieman Journal: J Clin Imaging Sci Date: 2016-10-21