Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography

JAMA

Volumn 301, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 500-507

  Hausleiter, Jörg ^a,b   Meyer, Tanja ^a   Hermann, Franziska ^a   Hadamitzky, Martin ^a   Krebs, Markus ^a   Gerber, Thomas C ^c   McCollough, Cynthia ^d   Martinoff, Stefan ^b   Kastrati, Adnan ^a   Schömig, Albert ^a   Achenbach, Stephan ^e  

^a Departments of Cardiology   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; SINUS RHYTHM; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; ALGORITHM; BODY MASS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HEART; MULTICENTER STUDY; ORGAN SIZE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY;

ALGORITHMS; BODY MASS INDEX; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HEART; HUMANS; ORGAN SIZE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 59649127716     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.54     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, et al; American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Assessment of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2006;114(16):1761-1791.
2. Fox K, Garcia MA, Ardissino D, et al; Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: the Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(11):1341-1381.
3. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group; American College of Radiology; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; North American Society for Cardiac Imaging; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of In-terventional Radiology. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(7):1475-1497.
4. Gallagher MJ, Ross MA, Raff GL, Goldstein JA, O'Neill WW, O'Neil B. The diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography compared with stress nuclear imaging in emergency department low-risk chest pain patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(2):125-136.
5. Di Carli MF. CT coronary angiography: where does it fit? J Nucl Med. 2006;47(9):1397-1399.
6. Hoffmann U, Ferencik M, Cury RC, Pena AJ. Coronary CT angiography. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(5): 797-806.
7. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European Guidelines for Multislice Computed Tomography: Appendix C. Funded by the European Commission; March 2004. Contract No. FIGM-CT2000-20078-CT-TIP. http://www.msct.eu/PDF-FILES/ EC%20CA%20Report%20D5%20-%20Dosimetry.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2009.
8. Jakobs TF, Becker CR, Ohnesorge B, et al. Mul-tislice helical CT of the heart with retrospective ECG gating: reduction of radiation exposure by ECG-controlled tube current modulation. Eur Radiol. 2002; 12(5):1081-1086.
9. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact ofdiffer-ent scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 2006;113(10):1305-1310.
10. Suess C, Chen X. Dose optimization in pediatric CT: current technology and future innovations. Pe-diatr Radiol. 2002;32(10):729-734, 751-754.
11. Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al. Prospec-tively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology. 2008;246(3):742-753.
12. Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, et al. Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(2):191-197.
13. Harrell FE Jr. Predicting Outcomes: Applied Survival Analysis and Logistic Regression. Charlottes-ville, VA: University of Virginia; 1997.
14. Diggle P, Liang K, Zeger S. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press; 1993.
15. The R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2007.
16. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277-2284.
17. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Web site. http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1003.html. Accessibility verified January 12, 2009.
18. 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(15):2318-2323.
19. McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of ef-fective dose. Med Phys. 2000;27(5):828-837.
20. Coles DR, Smail MA, Negus IS, et al. Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47(9):1840-1845.
21. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation. 2007; 116(11):1290-1305.
22. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007;298(3):317-323.
23. Johns H, Cunningham J. The Physics of Radiology. 4th ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1983.
24. Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF, et al. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology. 2005;235(2):354-358.
25. Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH. Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation. 2003;107(6):917-922.