Literature DB >> 27957643

Should the automatic exposure control system of CT be disabled when scanning patients with endoaortic stents or mechanical heart valves? A phantom study.

Giovanni Di Leo1, Chiara Spadavecchia2, Moreno Zanardo3, Francesco Secchi3, Ivan Veronese2,4, Marie Claire Cantone4,5, Francesco Sardanelli3,6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of endoaortic stents/mechanical heart valves on the output of an automatic exposure control (AEC) system and CT radiation dose.
METHODS: In this phantom study, seven stents and two valves were scanned with varying tube voltage (80/100/120 kVp), AEC activation (enabled/disabled) and prosthesis (present/absent), for a total of 540 scans. For each prosthesis, the dose-length product (DLP) was compared between scans with the AEC enabled and disabled. Percentage confidence levels for differences due to the prosthesis were calculated.
RESULTS: Differences between results with the AEC enabled and disabled were not statistically significant (p ≥ 0.059). In the comparison with and without the prosthesis, DLP was unchanged at 80 kVp and 100 kVp, while a slight increase was observed at 120 kVp. The radiation dose varied from 1.8 mGy to 2.4 mGy without the prosthesis and from 1.8 mGy to 2.5 mGy with the prosthesis (confidence level 37-100%).
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of the prosthesis on the AEC system was negligible and not clinically relevant. Therefore, disabling the AEC system when scanning these patients is not likely to provide a benefit. KEY POINTS: • CT-AEC system is not impaired in patients with endoaortic prostheses/heart valves. • Negligible differences may be observed only at 120 kVp. • Disabling the AEC system in these patients is not recommended.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automatic exposure control system; Computed tomography; Endoaortic stents; Mechanical heart valves; Radiation dose

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27957643     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4676-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  6 in total

Review 1.  Radiation protection in humans: extending the concept of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) from dose to biological damage.

Authors:  K N Prasad; W C Cole; G M Haase
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Proceedings of the Second ALARA Conference. February 28, 2004. Houston, Texas, USA.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2004-10

Review 3.  CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options.

Authors:  Cynthia H McCollough; Michael R Bruesewitz; James M Kofler
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  Evidence-based radiology: why and how?

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Myriam G Hunink; Fiona J Gilbert; Giovanni Di Leo; Gabriel P Krestin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Radiation dose modulation techniques in the multidetector CT era: from basics to practice.

Authors:  Chang Hyun Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Hyun Ju Ye; Sung-Joon Ye; Chang Min Park; Eun Ju Chun; Jung-Gi Im
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

6.  Do metallic endoprostheses increase radiation dose associated with automatic tube-current modulation in abdominal-pelvic MDCT? A phantom and patient study.

Authors:  Stefania M R Rizzo; Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Michael A Blake; Thomas L Toth; Sanjay Saini
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.959

  6 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  CT angiography for the assessment of EVAR complications: a pictorial review.

Authors:  Cecilia Gozzo; Giovanni Caruana; Roberto Cannella; Arduino Farina; Dario Giambelluca; Ettore Dinoto; Federica Vernuccio; Antonio Basile; Massimo Midiri
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-01-15
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.