PURPOSE: To compare measured radiation dose (MD), estimated radiation dose (ED) and image quality in coronary computed tomography between turbo-flash (TFP) and retrospective protocol (RP) and correlate MD with size-specific dose estimates (SSDE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, we selected 68 patients (mean age, 59.2 ± 9.7 years) undergoing 192 × 2 dual-source CT (SOMATOM Force, Siemens) to rule out coronary artery disease. Thirty-one underwent TFP and 37 RP. To evaluate in vivo MD, thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed, superficially, at thyroid and heart level, left breast areola and left hemi-thorax. MD in each site, and ED parameters, such as volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), SSDE, dose length product (DLP), effective dose (E), were compared between two protocols with a t test. Image quality was compared between two protocols. Inter-observer agreement was evaluated with a kappa coefficient (k). In each protocol, MD was correlated with SSDE using a Pearson coefficient (r). RESULTS: Comparing TFP and RP, MD at thyroid (1.43 vs. 2.58 mGy; p = 0.0408), heart (3.58 vs. 28.72 mGy; p < 0.0001), left breast areola (3.00 vs. 24.21 mGy; p < 0.0001) and left hemi-thorax (2.68 vs. 24.03 mGy; p < 0.0001), CTDIvol, SSDE, DLP and E were significantly lower. Differences in image quality were not statistically significant. Inter-observer agreement was good (k = 0.796) in TFP and very good (k = 0.817) in RP. MD and SSDE excellently correlated with TFP (r = 0.9298, p < 0.0001) and RP (r = 0.9753, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: With TFP, MD, CTDIvol, SSDE, DLP and E were significantly lower, than with RP. Image quality was similar between two protocols. MD correlated excellently with SSDE in each protocol.
PURPOSE: To compare measured radiation dose (MD), estimated radiation dose (ED) and image quality in coronary computed tomography between turbo-flash (TFP) and retrospective protocol (RP) and correlate MD with size-specific dose estimates (SSDE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, we selected 68 patients (mean age, 59.2 ± 9.7 years) undergoing 192 × 2 dual-source CT (SOMATOM Force, Siemens) to rule out coronary artery disease. Thirty-one underwent TFP and 37 RP. To evaluate in vivo MD, thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed, superficially, at thyroid and heart level, left breast areola and left hemi-thorax. MD in each site, and ED parameters, such as volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), SSDE, dose length product (DLP), effective dose (E), were compared between two protocols with a t test. Image quality was compared between two protocols. Inter-observer agreement was evaluated with a kappa coefficient (k). In each protocol, MD was correlated with SSDE using a Pearson coefficient (r). RESULTS: Comparing TFP and RP, MD at thyroid (1.43 vs. 2.58 mGy; p = 0.0408), heart (3.58 vs. 28.72 mGy; p < 0.0001), left breast areola (3.00 vs. 24.21 mGy; p < 0.0001) and left hemi-thorax (2.68 vs. 24.03 mGy; p < 0.0001), CTDIvol, SSDE, DLP and E were significantly lower. Differences in image quality were not statistically significant. Inter-observer agreement was good (k = 0.796) in TFP and very good (k = 0.817) in RP. MD and SSDE excellently correlated with TFP (r = 0.9298, p < 0.0001) and RP (r = 0.9753, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: With TFP, MD, CTDIvol, SSDE, DLP and E were significantly lower, than with RP. Image quality was similar between two protocols. MD correlated excellently with SSDE in each protocol.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coronary CT; Dual-source CT; Estimated radiation dose; In vivo radiation dose
Authors: Piet K Vanhoenacker; Majanka H Heijenbrok-Kal; Ruben Van Heste; Isabel Decramer; Lieven R Van Hoe; William Wijns; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas G Flohr; Cynthia H McCollough; Herbert Bruder; Martin Petersilka; Klaus Gruber; Christoph Süss; Michael Grasruck; Karl Stierstorfer; Bernhard Krauss; Rainer Raupach; Andrew N Primak; Axel Küttner; Stefan Achenbach; Christoph Becker; Andreas Kopp; Bernd M Ohnesorge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-12-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Robert P Goetti; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Udo Hoffmann; Thomas G Flohr; Sebastian Leschka; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: D Seppelt; C Kolb; J P Kühn; U Speiser; C G Radosa; S Hoberück; R T Hoffmann; I Platzek Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Shane J Foley; Mark F McEntee; Stephan Achenbach; Patrick C Brennan; Louise S Rainford; Jonathan D Dodd Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jörg Hausleiter; Tanja Meyer; Franziska Hermann; Martin Hadamitzky; Markus Krebs; Thomas C Gerber; Cynthia McCollough; Stefan Martinoff; Adnan Kastrati; Albert Schömig; Stephan Achenbach Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marco Fogante; Giacomo Agliata; Maria Chiara Basile; Paolo Compagnucci; Giovanni Volpato; Umberto Falanga; Giulia Stronati; Federico Guerra; Davide Vignale; Antonio Esposito; Antonio Dello Russo; Michela Casella; Andrea Giovagnoni Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 2.430