Cargando…
Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare image quality and mean radiation dose between two groups of patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) using a 640-slice CT scanner with two protocols with different noise level thresholds expressed as standard deviation (SD). MA...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6251242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30546936 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_51_18 |
_version_ | 1783373081484460032 |
---|---|
author | Di Cesare, Ernesto Di Sibio, Alessandra Gennarelli, Antonio Di Luzio, Margherita Casazza, Ines Splendiani, Alessandra Di Cesare, Annamaria Gravina, Giovanni Luca Barile, Antonio Masciocchi, Carlo |
author_facet | Di Cesare, Ernesto Di Sibio, Alessandra Gennarelli, Antonio Di Luzio, Margherita Casazza, Ines Splendiani, Alessandra Di Cesare, Annamaria Gravina, Giovanni Luca Barile, Antonio Masciocchi, Carlo |
author_sort | Di Cesare, Ernesto |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare image quality and mean radiation dose between two groups of patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) using a 640-slice CT scanner with two protocols with different noise level thresholds expressed as standard deviation (SD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two-hundred and sixty-eight patients underwent a CCTA with 640 slice CT scanner. In the experimental group (135 patients), an SD 51 protocol was employed; in the control group (133 patients), an SD 33 protocol was used. Mean effective dose and image quality with both objective and subjective measures were assessed. Image quality was subjectively assessed using a five-point scoring system. Segments scoring 2, 3, and 4 were considered having diagnostic quality, while segments scoring 0 and 1 were considered having nondiagnostic quality. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between the two groups as well as the effective radiation dose (ED) was finally assessed. RESULTS: Comparative analysis considering diagnostic quality (2, 3, and 4 score) and nondiagnostic (score 0 and 1) quality demonstrated that image quality of SD 51 group is not significantly lower than that of S33 group. The noise was significantly higher in the SD 51 group than in the SD 33 group (P < 0.0001). The SNR and CNR were higher in the SD 33 group than in SD 51 group (P < 0.0001). Mean effective dose was 49% lower in the SD 51 group than in SD 33 group; indeed mean effective dose was 1.43 mSv ± 0.67 in the SD 51 group while it was 2.8 mSv ± 0.57 in the SD 33 group. CONCLUSION: Comparative analysis shows that using a 640-slice CT with a 51 SD protocol, it is possible to reduce the mean radiation dose while maintaining good diagnostic image quality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6251242 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62512422018-12-13 Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Di Cesare, Ernesto Di Sibio, Alessandra Gennarelli, Antonio Di Luzio, Margherita Casazza, Ines Splendiani, Alessandra Di Cesare, Annamaria Gravina, Giovanni Luca Barile, Antonio Masciocchi, Carlo J Clin Imaging Sci Original Article PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare image quality and mean radiation dose between two groups of patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) using a 640-slice CT scanner with two protocols with different noise level thresholds expressed as standard deviation (SD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two-hundred and sixty-eight patients underwent a CCTA with 640 slice CT scanner. In the experimental group (135 patients), an SD 51 protocol was employed; in the control group (133 patients), an SD 33 protocol was used. Mean effective dose and image quality with both objective and subjective measures were assessed. Image quality was subjectively assessed using a five-point scoring system. Segments scoring 2, 3, and 4 were considered having diagnostic quality, while segments scoring 0 and 1 were considered having nondiagnostic quality. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between the two groups as well as the effective radiation dose (ED) was finally assessed. RESULTS: Comparative analysis considering diagnostic quality (2, 3, and 4 score) and nondiagnostic (score 0 and 1) quality demonstrated that image quality of SD 51 group is not significantly lower than that of S33 group. The noise was significantly higher in the SD 51 group than in the SD 33 group (P < 0.0001). The SNR and CNR were higher in the SD 33 group than in SD 51 group (P < 0.0001). Mean effective dose was 49% lower in the SD 51 group than in SD 33 group; indeed mean effective dose was 1.43 mSv ± 0.67 in the SD 51 group while it was 2.8 mSv ± 0.57 in the SD 33 group. CONCLUSION: Comparative analysis shows that using a 640-slice CT with a 51 SD protocol, it is possible to reduce the mean radiation dose while maintaining good diagnostic image quality. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6251242/ /pubmed/30546936 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_51_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Clinical Imaging Science http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Di Cesare, Ernesto Di Sibio, Alessandra Gennarelli, Antonio Di Luzio, Margherita Casazza, Ines Splendiani, Alessandra Di Cesare, Annamaria Gravina, Giovanni Luca Barile, Antonio Masciocchi, Carlo Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography |
title | Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography |
title_full | Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography |
title_fullStr | Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography |
title_full_unstemmed | Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography |
title_short | Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography |
title_sort | low dose versus standard single heartbeat acquisition coronary computed tomography angiography |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6251242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30546936 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_51_18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dicesareernesto lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT disibioalessandra lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT gennarelliantonio lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT diluziomargherita lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT casazzaines lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT splendianialessandra lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT dicesareannamaria lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT gravinagiovanniluca lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT barileantonio lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography AT masciocchicarlo lowdoseversusstandardsingleheartbeatacquisitioncoronarycomputedtomographyangiography |