PURPOSE: To compare the impact of a 100 kV tube voltage protocol to 120 kV in terms of image quality and radiation dose by a 320 row coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with automatic exposure control (AEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a propensity matched analysis we compared a group of 135 patients scanned using a 100 kV tube voltage protocol with a group of 135 subjects scanned employing a 120 kV tube voltage setting. In all subjects the heart rate (HR) was <65 bpm and all CT scans were acquired using a prospective ECG gating and AEC strategy. Mean effective radiation dose and subjective and objective (Noise or N, signal to noise ratio or SNR, contrast to noise ratio or CNR) image quality, were evaluated. Subjective quality was assessed by two experienced radiologists using a 5-point scale (0: non diagnostic-4: excellent) using the 15-segment American Heart Association (AHA) coronary artery classification. RESULTS: Mean effective dose and noise were non significantly different between the two groups: mean effective dose was 2.89 ± 0.7 mSv in the 100 kV group and 2.80 ± 0.57 mSv in the 120 kV group (p = 0.25) while noise was 28.9 ± 3.3 in the 120 kV group and 29.05 ± 3.6 in the 100 kV group (p = 0.72). Both SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the 100 kV group than in the 120 kV group. This data agrees with the evidence that subjective quality was significantly higher in the 100 kV group in the middle and distal segmental classes. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that, in using a 320 row CCTA with AEC strategy it is better to employ a 100 kV tube voltage protocol because compared to 120 kV tube voltage setting, it appears to significantly improve both subjective and objective image quality without decreasing the mean effective radiation dose.
PURPOSE: To compare the impact of a 100 kV tube voltage protocol to 120 kV in terms of image quality and radiation dose by a 320 row coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with automatic exposure control (AEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a propensity matched analysis we compared a group of 135 patients scanned using a 100 kV tube voltage protocol with a group of 135 subjects scanned employing a 120 kV tube voltage setting. In all subjects the heart rate (HR) was <65 bpm and all CT scans were acquired using a prospective ECG gating and AEC strategy. Mean effective radiation dose and subjective and objective (Noise or N, signal to noise ratio or SNR, contrast to noise ratio or CNR) image quality, were evaluated. Subjective quality was assessed by two experienced radiologists using a 5-point scale (0: non diagnostic-4: excellent) using the 15-segment American Heart Association (AHA) coronary artery classification. RESULTS: Mean effective dose and noise were non significantly different between the two groups: mean effective dose was 2.89 ± 0.7 mSv in the 100 kV group and 2.80 ± 0.57 mSv in the 120 kV group (p = 0.25) while noise was 28.9 ± 3.3 in the 120 kV group and 29.05 ± 3.6 in the 100 kV group (p = 0.72). Both SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the 100 kV group than in the 120 kV group. This data agrees with the evidence that subjective quality was significantly higher in the 100 kV group in the middle and distal segmental classes. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that, in using a 320 row CCTA with AEC strategy it is better to employ a 100 kV tube voltage protocol because compared to 120 kV tube voltage setting, it appears to significantly improve both subjective and objective image quality without decreasing the mean effective radiation dose.
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: F Cademartiri; L La Grutta; A Palumbo; E Maffei; A Aldrovandi; R Malagò; F Alberghina; F Pugliese; G Runza; M Belgrano; M Midiri; M A Cova; G P Krestin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 3.469
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: Márcio Sommer Bittencourt; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Seltmann; Gerd Muschiol; Dieter Ropers; Werner Günther Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Nico R Mollet; Pedro A Lemos; Fransesco Saia; Massimo Midiri; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Eun Ju Chun; Whal Lee; Young Hoon Choi; Bon-Kwon Koo; Sang Il Choi; Hwan Jun Jae; Hyo-Cheol Kim; Young Ho So; Jin Wook Chung; Jae Hyung Park Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
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: Toon Van Cauteren; Kaoru Tanaka; Dries Belsack; Gert Van Gompel; Veerle Kersemans; Kristin Jochmans; Steven Droogmans; Johan de Mey; Nico Buls Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Ernesto Di Cesare; Alessandra Di Sibio; Antonio Gennarelli; Margherita Di Luzio; Ines Casazza; Alessandra Splendiani; Annamaria Di Cesare; Giovanni Luca Gravina; Antonio Barile; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: J Clin Imaging Sci Date: 2018-11-15