| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Full paper |
Department of Radiology, Columbia University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Milstein Bldg Room 3-265B, New York, NY 10032-3784, USA
Correspondence: Professor Edward Lee Nickoloff, DSc, Columbia University, 177 Ft. Washington Avenue, Millstein Hospital Bldg Rm 3-265B, New York, NY 10032-3784, USA. E-mail: eln1{at}columbia.edu
The goal of this study was to measure radiation doses for 64-slice cardiac CT angiography studies and to study the dose-savings features of these CT scanners. This was done using various phantoms. These radiation doses were compared with those from typical helical body CT scans, fluoroscopy cardiac catheterization studies and mammography examinations. Radiation measurements were made with a CT ionization detector and a solid state dosimeter. A GE 64-slice Lightspeed VCT and a Siemens Somatom Sensation 64 CT were used to scan a standard 32 cm acrylic phantom and an anthropomorphic phantom. Data were collected in axial and various gated cardiac helical modes. Organ doses and the effective doses were calculated from the measurements. In gated CT cardiac mode with the 32 cm acrylic phantom, the measured radiation doses per study were generally three to seven times greater than those from typical body helical CT examinations; the range depended upon selectable scan parameters. With the anatomical phantom, the surface doses in the anteroposterior (AP) plane were typically 20–60% higher than those measured using the 32 cm phantom. The lateral surface doses were –4% to +15%. These results can be attributed to the shorter AP dimension and the air in the lungs. The CT skin entrance radiation doses were 80–90% less than diagnostic cardiac catheterization studies, and organ doses were similar. Because 64-slice cardiac gated CT uses pitches equal to 0.20–0.27 and high mAs values, the patient radiation doses are appreciably higher than in routine body CT examinations. The female breast, which could receive a radiation dose 10–30 times that received from mammography screening, is an organ of particular concern.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. Huang, M. W.-M. Law, H. K.-F. Mak, S. P.-F. Kwok, and P.-L. Khong Pediatric 64-MDCT Coronary Angiography With ECG-Modulated Tube Current: Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2009; 193(2): 539 - 544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Maruyama, M. Takada, T. Hasuike, A. Yoshikawa, E. Namimatsu, and T. Yoshizumi Radiation Dose Reduction and Coronary Assessability of Prospective Electrocardiogram-Gated Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography: Comparison With Retrospective Electrocardiogram-Gated Helical Scan J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 28, 2008; 52(18): 1450 - 1455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. L. Nickoloff, Z. F. Lu, A. K. Dutta, and J. C. So Radiation Dose Descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and Other Strange Creatures1 RadioGraphics, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 1439 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| BJR | DMFR | IMAGING | ALL BIR JOURNALS |