Dose Performance of a 64-Channel Dual-Source CT Scanner

Purpose: To prospectively compare the dose performance of a 64-channel multi–detector row computed tomographic (CT) scanner and a 64-channel dual-source CT scanner from the same manufacturer.

Materials and Methods: To minimize dose in the cardiac (dual-source) mode, the evaluated dual-source CT system uses a cardiac beam-shaping filter, three-dimensional adaptive noise reduction, heart rate–dependent pitch, and electrocardiographically based modulation of the tube current. Weighted CT dose index per 100 mAs was measured for the head, body, and cardiac beam-shaping filters. Kerma-length product was measured in the spiral cardiac mode at four pitch values and three electrocardiographic modulation temporal windows. Noise was measured in an anthropomorphic phantom. Data were compared with data from a 64-channel multi–detector row CT scanner.

Results: For the multi–detector row and dual-source CT systems, respectively, weighted CT dose index per 100 mAs was 14.2 and 12.2 mGy (head CT), 6.8 and 6.4 mGy (body CT), and 6.8 and 5.3 mGy (cardiac CT). In the spiral cardiac mode (no electrocardiographically based tube current modulation, 0.2 pitch), equivalent noise occurred at volume CT dose index values of 23.7 and 35.0 mGy (coronary artery calcium CT) and 58.9 and 61.2 mGy (coronary CT angiography) for multi–detector row CT and dual-source CT, respectively. The use of heart rate–dependent pitch values reduced volume CT dose index to 46.2 mGy (0.265 pitch), 34.0 mGy (0.36 pitch), and 26.6 mGy (0.46 pitch) compared with 61.2 mGy for 0.2 pitch. The use of electrocardiographically based tube current–modulation and temporal windows of 110, 210, and 310 msec further reduced volume CT dose index to 9.1–25.1 mGy, dependent on the heart rate.

Conclusion: For electrocardiographically gated coronary CT angiography, image noise equivalent to that of multi–detector row CT can be achieved with dual-source CT at doses comparable to or up to a factor of two lower than the doses at multi–detector row CT, depending on heart rate of the patient.

© RSNA, 2007


  • 1 Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Becker C, et al. Cardiac imaging by means of electrocardiographically gated multisection spiral CT: initial experience. Radiology 2000; 217: 564–571. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kachelriess M, Ulzheimer S, Kalender WA. ECG-correlated image reconstruction from subsecond multi-slice spiral CT scans of the heart. Med Phys 2000;27:1881–1902. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Taguchi K, Anno H. High temporal resolution for multislice helical computed tomography. Med Phys 2000;27:861–872. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH. Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 2003;107:917–922. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McCollough CH. Patient dose in cardiac computed tomography. Herz 2003;28:1–6. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991;21:1–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1987. Google Scholar
  • 8 Flohr T, Ohnesorge B, Bruder H, et al. Image reconstruction and performance evaluation for ECG-gated spiral scanning with a 16-slice CT system. Med Phys 2003;30:2650–2662. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Flohr TG, Schoepf UJ, Kuettner A, et al. Advances in cardiac imaging with 16-section CT systems. Acad Radiol 2003;10:386–401. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Ulzheimer S, Bruder H, Primak AN, McCollough CH. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner with z-flying focal spot. Med Phys 2005;32:2536–2547. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Primak AN, McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Zhang J, Fletcher JG. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. RadioGraphics 2006;26:1785–1794. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Flohr T, Ohnesorge B. Heart rate adaptive optimization of spatial and temporal resolution for electrocardiogram-gated multislice spiral CT of the heart. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:907–923. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, et al. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:147–154. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:552–557. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation 2005;112:2318–2323. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ohnesorge BM, Westerman BR, Schoepf UJ. Scan techniques for cardiac and coronary artery imaging with multislice CT. In: Schoepf UJ, ed. CT of the heart: principles and applications. Totowa, NJ: Humana, 2005; 23–43. Google Scholar
  • 17 Halliburton SS, Stillman AE, Flohr T, et al. Do segmented reconstruction algorithms for cardiac multi-slice computed tomography improve image quality? Herz 2003;28:20–31. Google Scholar
  • 18 Robb RA, Ritman EL. High-speed synchronous volume computer tomography of the heart. Radiology 1979;133:655–661. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ritman EL, Kinsey JH, Robb RA, Gilbert BK, Harris LD, Wood EH. Three-dimensional imaging of heart, lungs, and circulation. Science 1980;210:273–280. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006;16:256–268. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schardt P, Deuringer J, Freudenberger J, et al. New x-ray tube performance in computed tomography by introducing the rotating envelope tube technology. Med Phys 2004;31:2699–2706. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment: part 2-44—particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography. Publication no. 60601-2-44. Ed. 2.1. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2002; 1–36. Google Scholar
  • 23 McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT—radiation dose in CT. RadioGraphics 2002;22:1541–1553. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 24 European Commission. European guidelines for quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 25 Raupach R, Bruder H, Stierstorfer K, Suess C, Flohr T. A novel approach for efficient edge preserving noise reduction in CT volume data [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2005; 524. Google Scholar
  • 26 Ulzheimer S, Kalender WA. Assessment of calcium scoring performance in cardiac computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2003;13:484–497. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al. Multislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1081–1086. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ, et al. Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1409–1415. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Achenbach S, Ropers D, Kuettner A, et al. Contrast-enhanced coronary artery visualization by dual-source computed tomography: initial experience. Eur J Radiol 2006;57:331–335. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007