Julian L Wichmann1,2, Xiaohan Hu3, Alexander Engler4, J Matthias Kerl3, Martin Beeres3, Claudia Frellesen3, Wolfgang Luboldt3, Thomas J Vogl3, Ralf W Bauer3, Thomas Lehnert3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. docwichmann@gmail.com. 2. Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt Am Main, Institut für Diagnostische Und Interventionelle Radiologie, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. docwichmann@gmail.com. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 4. Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Plastic Facial Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare radiation exposure and image quality of second-generation 128-slice dual-source CT (DSCT) coronary angiography (cCTA) protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from four groups with 25 patients, each examined by one of the following DSCT cCTA protocols: prospectively ECG-gated high-pitch (group 1) or sequential (group 2) acquisition, retrospectively ECG-gated acquisition in dual-energy (DECT, group 3) or dual-source (group 4) mode. CT dose index volume, dose length product, estimated radiation dose, contrast-to-noise- and signal-to-noise-ratios were compared. Subjective image quality was rated by two observers blinded to the protocols. RESULTS: High-pitch DSCT showed a mean estimated radiation dose of 1.27 ± 0.62 mSv, significantly (p < 0.01) lower than sequential (2.04 ± 0.94 mSv), dual-energy (3.97 ± 1.29 mSv) or dual-source (8.11 ± 4.95 mSv) acquisition. Image noise showed no statistical difference (p > 0.91), ranging from 15.2 ± 4.4 (group 2) up to 24.5 ± 22.0 (group 4). Each protocol showed diagnostic image quality in at least 98.1 % of evaluated coronary segments without significant differences (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Prospectively ECG-gated DSCT protocols enable cCTA with significant dose reduction and consistently diagnostic image quality. In patients requiring retrospectively ECG-gated DSCT for functional analysis or due to arrhythmia, dual-energy mode should be preferred over dual-source mode as it significantly decreases estimated dose without compromising image quality.
OBJECTIVES: To compare radiation exposure and image quality of second-generation 128-slice dual-source CT (DSCT) coronary angiography (cCTA) protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from four groups with 25 patients, each examined by one of the following DSCT cCTA protocols: prospectively ECG-gated high-pitch (group 1) or sequential (group 2) acquisition, retrospectively ECG-gated acquisition in dual-energy (DECT, group 3) or dual-source (group 4) mode. CT dose index volume, dose length product, estimated radiation dose, contrast-to-noise- and signal-to-noise-ratios were compared. Subjective image quality was rated by two observers blinded to the protocols. RESULTS: High-pitch DSCT showed a mean estimated radiation dose of 1.27 ± 0.62 mSv, significantly (p < 0.01) lower than sequential (2.04 ± 0.94 mSv), dual-energy (3.97 ± 1.29 mSv) or dual-source (8.11 ± 4.95 mSv) acquisition. Image noise showed no statistical difference (p > 0.91), ranging from 15.2 ± 4.4 (group 2) up to 24.5 ± 22.0 (group 4). Each protocol showed diagnostic image quality in at least 98.1 % of evaluated coronary segments without significant differences (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Prospectively ECG-gated DSCT protocols enable cCTA with significant dose reduction and consistently diagnostic image quality. In patients requiring retrospectively ECG-gated DSCT for functional analysis or due to arrhythmia, dual-energy mode should be preferred over dual-source mode as it significantly decreases estimated dose without compromising image quality.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard A P Takx; Antonio Moscariello; U Joseph Schoepf; J Michael Barraza; John W Nance; Gorka Bastarrika; Marco Das; Mathias Meyer; Joachim E Wildberger; Stefan O Schoenberg; Christian Fink; Thomas Henzler Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Sujith K Seneviratne; Quynh A Truong; Fabian Bamberg; Ian S Rogers; Michael D Shapiro; Christopher L Schlett; Claudia U Chae; Ricardo Cury; Suhny Abbara; Thomas J Brady; John T Nagurney; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: J Matthias Kerl; James G Ravenel; Shaun A Nguyen; Pal Suranyi; Christian Thilo; Philip Costello; Werner Bautz; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; John W Nance; Justin R Silverman; Brian A Flowers; Thomas Henzler Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carsten Rist; Thorsten R Johnson; Jens Müller-Starck; Elisabeth Arnoldi; Tobias Saam; Alexander Becker; Alexander W Leber; Bernd J Wintersperger; Christoph R Becker; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.016