Radiation exposure related to cardiovascular CT examination: comparison between conventional 64-MDCT and third-generation dual-source MDCT.
Cardiovascular Diseases
/ diagnostic imaging
Computed Tomography Angiography
/ adverse effects
Coronary Angiography
/ adverse effects
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Equipment Safety
Humans
Multidetector Computed Tomography
/ adverse effects
Radiation Dosage
Radiation Exposure
Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Time Factors
192 × 2 dual-source computed tomography
64 single-source computed tomography
Cardiovascular examinations
Radiation dose comparison
Journal
La Radiologia medica
ISSN: 1826-6983
Titre abrégé: Radiol Med
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 0177625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
11
03
2019
accepted:
09
04
2019
pubmed:
24
4
2019
medline:
26
9
2019
entrez:
24
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare radiation exposure associated with daily practice cardiovascular (CV) examinations performed on two different multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanners, a conventional 64-MDCT and a third-generation dual-source (DS) MDCT. In this retrospective study, 1458 patients who underwent CV examinations between January 2017 and August 2018 were enrolled. A single-source 64-MDCT (Lightspeed VCT, GE) scan was performed in 705 patients from January to August 2017 (207 coronary examinations and 498 vascular examinations) and 753 patients underwent third-generation 192 × 2-DSCT (Somatom FORCE, Siemens) scan from January to August 2018 (302 coronary examinations and 451 vascular examinations). Volume CT dose index (CTDI In coronary examinations with DSCT, CTDI In daily practice, CV examinations CTDI, DLP, ED, ET and TV were lower and PF was higher with 192 × 2-DSCT compared to 64-MDCT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31011995
doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01036-6
pii: 10.1007/s11547-019-01036-6
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
753-761Références
Radiology. 2000 Apr;215(1):138-46
pubmed: 10751479
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2001 Jul-Aug;25(4):580-6
pubmed: 11473190
Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):426-33
pubmed: 12676973
Radiographics. 2003 Oct;23 Spec No:S93-110
pubmed: 14557505
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2003 May-Jun;26(3):290-5
pubmed: 14562981
Radiology. 2004 May;231(2):393-8
pubmed: 15031431
Circulation. 2004 May 11;109(18):2160-7
pubmed: 15136509
N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr 28;352(17):1760-8
pubmed: 15858185
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 May;16(5):663-7
pubmed: 15872321
Eur J Radiol. 2006 Nov;60(2):279-86
pubmed: 16887313
JAMA. 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317-23
pubmed: 17635892
Radiology. 2007 Aug;244(2):419-28
pubmed: 17641365
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Jul;67(1):78-84
pubmed: 17766073
Eur Heart J. 2007 Dec;28(24):3042-50
pubmed: 17981829
Heart. 2008 Nov;94(11):1386-93
pubmed: 18669550
Am J Med. 2008 Aug;121(8):715-25
pubmed: 18691486
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Dec;68(3):362-8
pubmed: 18842371
Korean J Radiol. 2009 May-Jun;10(3):285-93
pubmed: 19412517
Eur Radiol. 2009 Dec;19(12):2896-903
pubmed: 19760229
Eur Radiol. 2009 Nov;19(11):2576-83
pubmed: 19760421
Eur Heart J. 2010 Feb;31(3):340-6
pubmed: 19897497
Heart. 2010 Jun;96(12):933-8
pubmed: 20538669
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Jul;27(6):755-71
pubmed: 20857200
Eur Radiol. 2011 Mar;21(3):505-9
pubmed: 20957482
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Apr;4(4):328-37
pubmed: 21492807
Eur Radiol. 2012 Feb;22(2):279-86
pubmed: 21874569
Br J Radiol. 2012 May;85(1013):495-510
pubmed: 22253353
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Feb;29(2):443-52
pubmed: 22806317
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2012 Jun;2(2):98-105
pubmed: 23256066
Eur Radiol. 2014 Aug;24(8):1889-95
pubmed: 24838737
J Clin Imaging Sci. 2016 Oct 21;6:44
pubmed: 27833784
Acad Radiol. 2017 Jan;24(1):30-37
pubmed: 28029558
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Apr 15;119(8):1156-1161
pubmed: 28233536
Eur Heart J. 2018 Nov 1;39(41):3715-3723
pubmed: 30165629
Radiographics. 1999 Jan-Feb;19(1):45-60; quiz 149-50
pubmed: 9925391