Submillisievert Median Radiation Dose for Coronary Angiography with a Second-Generation 320–Detector Row CT Scanner in 107 Consecutive Patients

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122621

The second-generation 320–detector row CT scanner provided excellent image quality over a wide range of body sizes and heart rates at lower radiation doses compared with a previous-generation CT scanner.

Purpose

To (a) use a new second-generation wide-volume 320–detector row computed tomographic (CT) scanner to explore optimization of radiation exposure in coronary CT angiography in an unselected and consecutive cohort of patients referred for clinical purposes and (b) compare estimated radiation exposure and image quality with that from a cohort of similar patients who underwent imaging with a previous first-generation CT system.

Materials and Methods

The study was approved by the institutional review board, and all subjects provided written consent. Coronary CT angiography was performed in 107 consecutive patients with a new second-generation 320–detector row unit. Estimated radiation exposure and image quality were compared with those from 100 consecutive patients who underwent imaging with a previous first-generation scanner. Effective radiation dose was estimated by multiplying the dose-length product by an effective dose conversion factor of 0.014 mSv/mGy ⋅ cm and reported with size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs). Image quality was evaluated by two independent readers.

Results

The mean age of the 107 patients was 55.4 years ± 12.0 (standard deviation); 57 patients (53.3%) were men. The median body mass index was 27.3 kg/m2 (range, 18.1–47.2 kg/m2); however, 71 patients (66.4%) were overweight, obese, or morbidly obese. A tube potential of 100 kV was used in 97 patients (90.6%), single-volume acquisition was used in 104 (97.2%), and prospective electrocardiographic gating was used in 106 (99.1%). The mean heart rate was 57.1 beats per minute ± 11.2 (range, 34–96 beats per minute), which enabled single-heartbeat scans in 100 patients (93.4%). The median radiation dose was 0.93 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 0.58–1.74 mSv) with the second-generation unit and 2.67 mSv (IQR, 1.68–4.00 mSv) with the first-generation unit (P < .0001). The median SSDE was 6.0 mGy (IQR, 4.1–10.0 mGy) with the second-generation unit and 13.2 mGy (IQR, 10.2–18.6 mGy) with the first-generation unit (P < .0001). Overall, the radiation dose was less than 0.5 mSv for 23 of the 107 CT angiography examinations (21.5%), less than 1 mSv for 58 (54.2%), and less than 4 mSv for 103 (96.3%). All studies were of diagnostic quality, with most having excellent image quality. Three of four image quality indexes were significantly better with the second-generation unit compared with the first-generation unit.

Conclusion

The combination of a gantry rotation time of 275 msec, wide volume coverage, iterative reconstruction, automated exposure control, and larger x-ray power generator of the second-generation CT scanner provides excellent image quality over a wide range of body sizes and heart rates at low radiation doses.

© RSNA, 2013

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122621/-/DC1

References

  • 1 Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, et al.. Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography—a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Circulation 2008;118(5):586–606. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus DocumentsMark DB, Berman DS, et al.. ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT 2010 expert consensus document on coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 2010;121(22):2509–2543. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al.. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(21):1724–1732. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al.. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008;359(22):2324–2336. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Goldstein JA, Chinnaiyan KM, Abidov A, et al.. The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58(14):1414–1422. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, et al.. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med 2012;367(4):299–308. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Litt HI, Gatsonis C, Snyder B, et al.. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2012;366(15):1393–1403. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357(22):2277–2284. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007;298(3):317–323. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY, et al.. SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5(4):198–224. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dewey M, Zimmermann E, Deissenrieder F, et al.. Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation 2009;120(10):867–875. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML, et al.. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;24(5):535–546. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hsiao EM, Rybicki FJ, Steigner M. CT coronary angiography: 256-slice and 320-detector row scanners. Curr Cardiol Rep 2010;12(1):68–75. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller JM, et al.. Computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with 320-row detector computed tomography accurately detects myocardial ischemia in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5(3):333–340. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Cerci RJ, et al.. Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-MDCT: the CT angiography and perfusion methods of the CORE320 multicenter multinational diagnostic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(4):829–837. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Steigner ML, Mitsouras D, Whitmore AG, et al.. Iodinated contrast opacification gradients in normal coronary arteries imaged with prospectively ECG-gated single heart beat 320-detector row computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3(2):179–186. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hein PA, May J, Rogalla P, Butler C, Hamm B, Lembcke A. Feasibility of contrast material volume reduction in coronary artery imaging using 320-slice volume CT. Eur Radiol 2010;20(6):1337–1343. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stevens LA, Coresh J, Greene T, Levey AS. Assessing kidney function: measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate. N Engl J Med 2006;354(23):2473–2483. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bedayat A, Rybicki FJ, Kumamaru K, et al.. Reduced exposure using asymmetric cone beam processing for wide area detector cardiac CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;28(2):381–388. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Van der Molen AJ, Joemai RM, Geleijns J. Performance of longitudinal and volumetric tube current modulation in a 64-slice CT with different choices of acquisition and reconstruction parameters. Phys Med 2012;28(4):319–326. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bongartz G, Golding S, Jurik A, et al.. European guidelines for multislice computed tomography: appendix C. Funded by the European Commission contract number FIGM-CT2000-20078-CT-TIP. Luxembourg: European Commission, March 2004. Google Scholar
  • 22 Boone J, Strauss K, Cody D, et al.. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Report of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 204. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2011. Google Scholar
  • 23 Hoe J, Toh KH. First experience with 320-row multidetector CT coronary angiography scanning with prospective electrocardiogram gating to reduce radiation dose. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009;3(4):257–261. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Khan A, Nasir K, Khosa F, Saghir A, Sarwar S, Clouse ME. Prospective gating with 320-MDCT angiography: effect of volume scan length on radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(2):407–411. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mahabadi AA, Achenbach S, Burgstahler C, et al.. Safety, efficacy, and indications of β-adrenergic receptor blockade to reduce heart rate prior to coronary CT angiography. Radiology 2010;257(3):614–623. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Roberts WT, Wright AR, Timmis JB, Timmis AD. Safety and efficacy of a rate control protocol for cardiac CT. Br J Radiol 2009;82(976):267–271. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al.. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009;301(5):500–507. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dewey M, Vavere AL, Arbab-Zadeh A, et al.. Patient characteristics as predictors of image quality and diagnostic accuracy of MDCT compared with conventional coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery stenoses: CORE-64 Multicenter International Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(1):93–102. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hausleiter J, Meyer TS, Martuscelli E, et al.. Image quality and radiation exposure with prospectively ECG-triggered axial scanning for coronary CT angiography: the multicenter, multivendor, randomized PROTECTION-III study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5(5):484–493. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al.. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008;246(3):742–753. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Achenbach S, Marwan M, Schepis T, et al.. High-pitch spiral acquisition: a new scan mode for coronary CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009;3(2):117–121. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hausleiter J, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M, 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):1113–1123. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. Iterative reconstruction methods in x-ray CT. Phys Med 2012;28(2):94–108. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, et al.. Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(3):655–660. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ghoshhajra BB, Engel LC, Károlyi M, et al.. Cardiac computed tomography angiography with automatic tube potential selection: effects on radiation dose and image quality. J Thorac Imaging 2013;28(1):40–48. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nasis A, Leung MC, Antonis PR, et al.. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography with 320-detector row computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2010;106(10):1429–1435. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sun G, Li M, Jiang XS, et al.. 320-detector row CT coronary angiography: effects of heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality, diagnostic accuracy and radiation exposure. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1016):e388–e394. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Abbara S, Arbab-Zadeh A, Callister TQ, et al.. SCCT guidelines for performance of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009;3(3):190–204. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, et al.. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 2012;308(12):1237–1245. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received November 25, 2012; revision requested December 5; revision received December 21; accepted December 27; final version accepted December 28.
Published online: Apr 2013
Published in print: Apr 2013