Literature DB >> 35244722

Radiation Doses in Patients Undergoing Computed Tomographic Coronary Artery Calcium Evaluation With a 64-Slice Scanner Versus a 256-Slice Scanner.

Paul Madaj1, Dong Li1, Rine Nakanishi1,2, Daniele Andreini3, Gianluca Pontone3, Edoardo Conte3, Rachael O'Rourke4,5, Christian Hamilton-Craig4, Manojna Nimmagadda1, Nicholas Kim1, Badiha Fatima1, Christopher Dailing1, Kashif Shaikh1, Chandana Shekar1, Ju Hwan Lee1, Matthew J Budoff1.   

Abstract

Computed tomographic coronary artery calcium scanning enables cardiovascular risk stratification; however, exposing patients to high radiation levels is an ongoing concern. New-generation computed tomographic systems use lower radiation doses than older systems do. To quantify comparative doses of radiation exposure, we prospectively acquired images from 220 patients with use of a 64-slice GE LightSpeed VCT scanner (control group, n=110) and a 256-slice GE Revolution scanner (study group, n=110). The groups were matched for age, sex, and body mass index; statistical analysis included t tests and linear regression. The mean dose-length product was 21% lower in the study group than in the control group (60.2 ± 27 vs 75.9 ± 22.6 mGy·cm; P <0.001) and also in each body mass index subgroup. Similarly, the mean effective radiation dose was 21% lower in the study group (0.84 ± 0.38 vs 1.06 ± 0.32 mSv) and lower in each weight subgroup. After adjustment for sex, women in the study group had a lower dose-length product (50.4 ± 23.4 vs 64.7 ± 27.6 mGy·cm) than men did and received a lower effective dose (0.7 ± 0.32 vs 0.9 ± 0.38 mSv) (P=0.009). As body mass index and waist circumference increased, so did doses for both scanners. Our study group was exposed to radiation doses lower than the previously determined standard of 1 mSv, even after adjustment for body mass index and waist circumference. In 256-slice scanning for coronary artery calcium, radiation doses are now similar to those in lung cancer screening and mammography.
© 2022 by the Texas Heart® Institute, Houston.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary angiography/methods; coronary artery disease/diagnostic imaging; multidetector computed tomography/instrumentation; predictive value of tests; prospective studies; radiation dosage; radiation exposure/prevention & control; risk factors; vascular calcification/diagnostic imaging

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35244722      PMCID: PMC9053663          DOI: 10.14503/THIJ-18-6793

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J        ISSN: 0730-2347


  22 in total

1.  Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.

Authors:  Thomas C Gerber; J Jeffrey Carr; Andrew E Arai; Robert L Dixon; Victor A Ferrari; Antoinette S Gomes; Gary V Heller; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Fred A Mettler; Jennifer H Mieres; Richard L Morin; Michael V Yester
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  Addressing Knowledge Gaps in the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk: a Review of Recent Coronary Artery Calcium Literature.

Authors:  Vasanth Sathiyakumar; Roger S Blumenthal; Khurram Nasir; Seth S Martin
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 5.113

3.  Comparison of Whole Heart Computed Tomography Scanners for Image Quality Lower Radiation Dosing in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: The CONVERGE Registry.

Authors:  Nirali Patel; Dong Li; Rine Nakanishi; Badiha Fatima; Daniele Andreini; Gianluca Pontone; Edoardo Conte; Rachael O'Rourke; Eranthi Jayawardena; Christian Hamilton-Craig; Manojna Nimmagadda; Matthew J Budoff
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Comparison of low-dose coronary artery calcium scoring using low tube current technique and hybrid iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection.

Authors:  Nada Sulaiman; Jeanette Soon; Jong Kwan Park; Christopher Naoum; Shaw-Hua Kueh; Philipp Blanke; Darra Murphy; Jennifer Ellis; Cameron J Hague; Jonathon Leipsic
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 5.  Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk.

Authors:  Kwang Pyo Kim; Andrew J Einstein; Amy Berrington de González
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-07-13

6.  Impact of coronary artery calcium progression and statin therapy on clinical outcome in subjects with and without diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Sarkis Kiramijyan; Naser Ahmadi; Hussain Isma'eel; Ferdinand Flores; Leslee J Shaw; Paolo Raggi; Matthew J Budoff
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Effect of obesity on coronary artery plaque using 64 slice multidetector cardiac computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  Hussain Isma'eel; David Tellalian; Yasmin S Hamirani; Jigar Kadakia; Khurram Nasir; Matthew J Budoff
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2008-12-30       Impact factor: 4.164

8.  Coronary Artery Calcium Progression Is Associated With Coronary Plaque Volume Progression: Results From a Quantitative Semiautomated Coronary Artery Plaque Analysis.

Authors:  Indre Ceponiene; Rine Nakanishi; Kazuhiro Osawa; Mitsuru Kanisawa; Negin Nezarat; Sina Rahmani; Kendall Kissel; Michael Kim; Eranthi Jayawardena; Alexander Broersen; Pieter Kitslaar; Matthew J Budoff
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-10-18

9.  Finding the optimal dose reduction and iterative reconstruction level for coronary calcium scoring.

Authors:  Martin J Willemink; Annemarie M den Harder; Wouter Foppen; Arnold M R Schilham; Rienk Rienks; Eduard M Laufer; Koen Nieman; Pim A de Jong; Ricardo P J Budde; Hendrik M Nathoe; Tim Leiner
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr       Date:  2015-08-28

Review 10.  Coronary artery calcium screening: does it perform better than other cardiovascular risk stratification tools?

Authors:  Irfan Zeb; Matthew Budoff
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.