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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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