Advertisement

Evolution of Radiation Dose from Cardiac CT

  • Manoj MannilEmail author
  • Hatem Alkadhi
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)

Abstract

The introduction of protocol developments and software modifications for cardiac computed tomography (CT) imaging such as automatic tube current modulation, optimized tube potential selection, electrocardiography (ECG) pulsing, and iterative reconstruction algorithms enabled a considerable decrease of ionizing radiation dose of cardiac CT examinations. In parallel, submillimeter spatial resolution and high temporal resolution for motion-free imaging of the small anatomic structures of the heart were achieved. Efforts must be made for choosing the best combination of all available techniques for radiation dose reduction for optimizing and minimizing the radiation exposure to each patient undergoing cardiac CT.

Keywords

Cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) Radiation dose ECG gating Automated exposure control Tube voltage Iterative reconstruction Radiation risks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alkadhi H, Leschka S. Radiation dose of cardiac computed tomography - what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):505–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    den Harder AM, Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Schilham AM, Rajiah P, Takx RA, et al. New horizons in cardiac CT. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(8):758–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desjardins B, Kazerooni EA. ECG-gated cardiac CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(4):993–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flohr TG, De Cecco CN, Schmidt B, Wang R, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG. Computed tomographic assessment of coronary artery disease: state-of-the-art imaging techniques. Radiol Clin North Am. 2015;53(2):271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leschka S, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, Plass A, Gaemperli O, Valenta I, et al. Image quality and reconstruction intervals of dual-source CT coronary angiography: recommendations for ECG-pulsing windowing. Investig Radiol. 2007;42(8):543–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Labounty TM, Leipsic J, Min JK, Heilbron B, Mancini GB, Lin FY, et al. Effect of padding duration on radiation dose and image interpretation in prospectively ECG-triggered coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):933–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    von Ballmoos MW, Haring B, Juillerat P, Alkadhi H. Meta-analysis: diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):413–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menke J, Unterberg-Buchwald C, Staab W, Sohns JM, Seif Amir Hosseini A, Schwarz A. Head-to-head comparison of prospectively triggered vs retrospectively gated coronary computed tomography angiography: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose. Am Heart J. 2013;165(2):154–63. e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Schoepf UJ, Vliegenthart R, Leidecker C, Allmendinger T, et al. Closing in on the K edge: coronary CT angiography at 100, 80, and 70 kV-initial comparison of a second- versus a third-generation dual-source CT system. Radiology. 2014;273(2):373–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Sedlmair M, Manka R, Plass A, Schmidt B, et al. Optimizing radiation dose by using advanced modelled iterative reconstruction in high-pitch coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, Scheffel H, Stinn B, Marincek B, et al. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(9):1809–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hausleiter J, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M, Martuscelli E, Pschierer I, Feuchtner GM, et al. Image quality and radiation exposure with a low tube voltage protocol for coronary CT angiography results of the PROTECTION II Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(11):1113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Huber E, Zankl M, Martinoff S, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 2006;113(10):1305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park YJ, Kim YJ, Lee JW, Kim HY, Hong YJ, Lee HJ, et al. Automatic Tube Potential Selection with Tube Current Modulation (APSCM) in coronary CT angiography: comparison of image quality and radiation dose with conventional body mass index-based protocol. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(3):184–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Naoum C, Blanke P, Leipsic J. Iterative reconstruction in cardiac CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(4):255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hell MM, Bittner D, Schuhbaeck A, Muschiol G, Brand M, Lell M, et al. Prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary angiography with third-generation dual-source CT at 70 kVp tube voltage: feasibility, image quality, radiation dose, and effect of iterative reconstruction. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2014;8(6):418–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leschka S, Kim CH, Baumueller S, Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Marincek B, et al. Scan length adjustment of CT coronary angiography using the calcium scoring scan: effect on radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(3):W272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, Hadamitzky M, Krebs M, Gerber TC, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 2009;301(5):500–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations