Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography.

CONTEXT Cardiac computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA) has emerged as a useful diagnostic imaging modality in the assessment of coronary artery disease. However, the potential risks due to exposure to ionizing radiation associated with CCTA have raised concerns. OBJECTIVES To estimate the radiation dose of CCTA in routine clinical practice as well as the association of currently available strategies with dose reduction and to identify the independent factors contributing to radiation dose. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS A cross-sectional, international, multicenter, observational study (50 study sites: 21 university hospitals and 29 community hospitals) of estimated radiation dose in 1965 patients undergoing CCTA between February and December 2007. Linear regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors associated with dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Dose-length product (DLP) of CCTA. RESULTS The median DLP of 1965 CCTA examinations performed at 50 study sites was 885 mGy x cm (interquartile range, 568-1259 mGy x cm), which corresponds to an estimated radiation dose of 12 mSv (or 1.2 x the dose of an abdominal CT study or 600 chest x-rays). A high variability in DLP was observed between study sites (range of median DLPs per site, 331-2146 mGy x cm). Independent factors associated with radiation dose were patient weight (relative effect on DLP, 5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4%-6%), absence of stable sinus rhythm (10%; 95% CI, 2%-19%), scan length (5%; 95% CI, 4%-6%), electrocardiographically controlled tube current modulation (-25%; 95% CI, -23% to -28%; applied in 73% of patients), 100-kV tube voltage (-46%; 95% CI, -42% to -51%; applied in 5% of patients), sequential scanning (-78%; 95% CI, -77% to -79%; applied in 6% of patients), experience in cardiac CT (-1%; 95% CI, -1% to 0%), number of CCTAs per month (0%; 95% CI, 0%-1%), and type of 64-slice CT system (for highest vs lowest dose system, 97%; 95% CI, 88%-106%). Algorithms for dose reduction were not associated with deteriorated diagnostic image quality in this observational study. CONCLUSIONS Median doses of CCTA differ significantly between study sites and CT systems. Effective strategies to reduce radiation dose are available but some strategies are not frequently used. The comparable diagnostic image quality may support an increased use of dose-saving strategies in adequately selected patients.

[1]  A. Einstein,et al.  Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. , 2007, JAMA.

[2]  G. Mancia,et al.  Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: the task force on the management of stable angina pectoris of the European society of cardiology. , 2006, European heart journal.

[3]  Fuminari Tatsugami,et al.  Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. , 2007, European heart journal.

[4]  Gd Rotterdam,et al.  High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography , 2006 .

[5]  L. Tanoue Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure , 2009 .

[6]  S. Abbara,et al.  Prospectively Gated Transverse Coronary CT Angiography versus Retrospectively Gated Helical Technique: Improved Image Quality and Reduced Radiation Dose , 2008 .

[7]  R. Morin,et al.  Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. , 2003, Circulation.

[8]  F. Spiers Physics of Radiology , 1968, Nature.

[9]  Thomas Flohr,et al.  Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation , 2002, European Radiology.

[10]  Brian O'Neil,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography compared with stress nuclear imaging in emergency department low-risk chest pain patients. , 2007, Annals of emergency medicine.

[11]  R. Cury,et al.  Coronary CT angiography. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  James C Carr,et al.  ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Ra , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  Manesh R. Patel,et al.  ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[14]  J. S. Laughlin,et al.  The Physics of Radiology. 4th ed , 1984 .

[15]  J. Camm,et al.  Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: The Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2006, European heart journal.

[16]  J. Camm,et al.  [Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary]. , 2006, Giornale italiano di cardiologia.

[17]  C. Suess,et al.  Dose optimization in pediatric CT: current technology and future innovations , 2002, Pediatric Radiology.

[18]  C H McCollough,et al.  Calculation of effective dose. , 2000, Medical physics.

[19]  Jörg Hausleiter,et al.  Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates , 2006, Circulation.

[20]  Randall C. Thompson,et al.  Radiation Dose to Patients From Cardiac Diagnostic Imaging , 2007, Circulation.

[21]  P. Diggle Analysis of Longitudinal Data , 1995 .

[22]  M. Carli CT Coronary Angiography: Where Does It Fit? , 2006 .

[23]  Peter Wilde,et al.  Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  Martin J Yaffe,et al.  Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. , 2005, Radiology.

[25]  Jonathan G Goldin,et al.  Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiolog , 2006, Circulation.

[26]  References , 1971 .