Cardiac Computed Tomography Technology and Dose-reduction Strategies

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 657-674

  Earls, James P ^a   Leipsic, Jonathon ^b  

^a Fairfax Radiological Consultants   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Angiography; Cardiac computed tomography; Dose reduction

Indexed keywords

BISMUTH;

ARTERY CALCIFICATION; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DOSIMETRY; ELECTRIC CURRENT; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HEART RATE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIATION SHIELD; RADIOCARDIOGRAPHY; REVIEW;

CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HUMANS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77955539456     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2010.04.003     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. Budoff M.J., Achenbach S., Blumenthal R.S., et al. 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., García M.A., Ardissino D., et al. Rev Esp Cardiol 2006, 59(9):919-970. [in Spanish].
3. Hendel R.C., Patel M.R., Kramer C.M., et al. 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. Brenner D.J., Hall E.J. Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007, 357(22):2277-2284.
5. Einstein A.J., Henzlova M.J., Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007, 298(3):317-323.
6. Smith-Bindman R., Lipson J., Marcus R., et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169(22):2078-2086.
7. Boyd D., Lipton M. Cardiac computed tomography. Proc IEEE 1983, 71(3):298-307.
8. Lipton M.J., Higgins C.B., Farmer D., et al. Cardiac imaging with a high-speed Cine-CT Scanner: preliminary results. Radiology 1984, 152(3):579-582.
9. Achenbach S., Ulzheimer S., Baum U., et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by retrospectively ECG-gated multislice spiral CT. Circulation 2000, 102(23):2823-2828.
10. Becker C.R., Knez A., Ohnesorge B., et al. Imaging of noncalcified coronary plaques using helical CT with retrospective ECG gating. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000, 175(2):423-424.
11. Flohr T., Ohnesorge B., Bruder H., et al. Image reconstruction and performance evaluation for ECG-gated spiral scanning with a 16-slice CT system. Med Phys 2003, 30(10):2650-2662.
12. Nieman K., Cademartiri F., Lemos P.A., et al. Reliable noninvasive coronary angiography with fast submillimeter multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 2002, 106(16):2051-2054.
13. Ropers D., Baum U., Pohle K., et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 2003, 107(5):664-666.
14. Mollet N.R., Cademartiri F., Nieman K., et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 43(12):2265-2270.
15. Kuettner A., Trabold T., Schroeder S., et al. Noninvasive detection of coronary lesions using 16-detector multislice spiral computed tomography technology: initial clinical results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 44(6):1230-1237.
16. Dewey M., Hoffmann H., Hamm B. CT coronary angiography using 16 and 64 simultaneous detector rows: intraindividual comparison. Rofo 2007, 179(6):581-586.
17. Burgstahler C., Reimann A., Brodoefel H., et al. Quantitative parameters to compare image quality of non-invasive coronary angiography with 16-slice, 64-slice and dual-source computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2009, 19(3):584-590.
18. Hamon M., Morello R., Riddell J.W., et al. Coronary arteries: diagnostic performance of 16- versus 64-section spiral CT compared with invasive coronary angiography-meta-analysis. Radiology 2007, 245(3):720-731.
19. Flohr T., Stierstorfer K., Raupach R., et al. Performance evaluation of a 64-slice CT system with z-flying focal spot. Rofo 2004, 176(12):1803-1810.
20. Herzog C., Nguyen S.A., Savino G., et al. Does two-segment image reconstruction at 64-section CT coronary angiography improve image quality and diagnostic accuracy?. Radiology 2007, 244(1):121-129.
21. Halliburton S.S., Stillman A.E., Flohr T., et al. Do segmented reconstruction algorithms for cardiac multi-slice computed tomography improve image quality?. Herz 2003, 28(1):20-31.
22. Budoff M.J., Dowe D., Jollis J.G., et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52(21):1724-1732.
23. Flohr T.G., Raupach R., Bruder H., et al. Cardiac CT: how much can temporal resolution, spatial resolution, and volume coverage be improved?. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009, 3(3):143-152.
24. Cheng V., Gutstein A., Wolak A., et al. Moving beyond binary grading of coronary arterial stenoses on coronary computed tomographic angiography: insights for the imager and referring clinician. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2008, 1(4):460-471.
25. Schuijf J.D., Pundziute G., Jukema J.W., et al. Evaluation of patients with previous coronary stent implantation with 64-section CT. Radiology 2007, 245(2):416-423.
26. Raff G.L., Gallagher M.J., O'Neill W.W., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46(3):552-557.
27. Hausleiter J., Meyer T., Hermann F., et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009, 301(5):500-507.
28. Hara A.K., Paden R.G., Silva A.C., et al. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 193(3):764-771.
29. Nuyts J., De Man B., Dupont P., et al. Iterative reconstruction for helical CT: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol 1998, 43(4):729-737.
30. Leipsic J, LaBounty J, Heilborn B, et al. Multicenter validation of noise reduction and image quality using ASIR in cardiac CT. Presented at the North American Society of Cardiovascular Imaging Annual Meeting. Orlando (FL), October 30, 2009.
31. Flohr T., Ohnesorge B. Heart rate adaptive optimization of spatial and temporal resolution for electrocardiogram-gated multislice spiral CT of the heart. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001, 25(6):907-923.
32. Mahesh M., Cody D.D. Physics of cardiac imaging with multiple-row detector CT. Radiographics 2007, 27(5):1495-1509.
33. Lee V. Cine gradient echo imaging. Cardiovascular MRI: physical principles to practical protocols 2006, 283-306. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. V.S. Lee (Ed.).
34. Wood E.H. Noninvasive three-dimensional viewing of the motion and anatomical structure of the heart, lungs, and circulatory system by high speed computerized X-ray tomography. CRC Crit Rev Biochem 1979, 7(2):161-186.
35. Flohr T.G., McCollough C.H., Bruder H., et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006, 16(2):256-268.
36. Johnson T.R.C., Nikolaou K., Busch S., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Invest Radiol 2007, 42(10):684-691.
37. Matt D., Scheffel H., Leschka S., et al. Dual-source CT coronary angiography: image quality, mean heart rate, and heart rate variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189(3):567-573.
38. Leber A.W., Johnson T., Becker A., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source multi-slice CT-coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2007, 28(19):2354-2360.
39. Achenbach S., Marwan M., Schepis T., et al. High-pitch spiral acquisition: a new scan mode for coronary CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009, 3(2):117-121.
40. Rybicki F.J., Otero H.J., Steigner M.L., et al. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008, 24(5):535-546.
41. Dewey M., Zimmermann E., Laule M., et al. Three-vessel coronary artery disease examined with 320-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Heart J 2008, 29(13):1669.
42. Steigner M.L., Otero H.J., Cai T., et al. Narrowing the phase window width in prospectively ECG-gated single heart beat 320-detector row coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 25(1):85-90.
43. Engel K.J., Herrmann C., Zeitler G. X-ray scattering in single- and dual-source CT. Med Phys 2008, 35(1):318-332.
44. Achenbach S., Marwan M., Ropers D., et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition [Internet]. Eur Heart J 2009, Available at:, Accessed January 4, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19897497.
45. Hausleiter J., Bischoff B., Hein F., et al. Feasibility of dual-source cardiac CT angiography with high-pitch scan protocols. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009, 3(4):236-242.
46. Lell M., Marwan M., Schepis T., et al. Prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition for coronary CT angiography using dual source CT: technique and initial experience. Eur Radiol 2009, 19(11):2576-2583.
47. Sommer W.H., Schenzle J.C., Becker C.R., et al. Saving dose in triple-rule-out computed tomography examination using a high-pitch dual spiral technique [Internet]. Invest Radiol 2009, Available at:, Accessed January 13, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20027121.
48. Abada H.T., Larchez C., Daoud B., et al. MDCT of the coronary arteries: feasibility of low-dose CT with ECG-pulsed tube current modulation to reduce radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186(6 Suppl 2):S387-S390.
49. Leschka S., Stolzmann P., Schmid F.T., et al. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2008, 18(9):1809-1817.
50. Jakobs T.F., Becker C.R., Ohnesorge B., et al. Multislice 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.
51. Earls J.P., Berman E.L., Urban B.A., et al. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 246(3):742-753.
52. Shuman W.P., Branch K.R., May J.M., et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 248(2):431-437.
53. Stolzmann P., Leschka S., Scheffel H., et al. Dual-source CT in step-and-shoot mode: noninvasive coronary angiography with low radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 249(1):71-80.
54. Husmann L., Herzog B.A., Burkhard N., et al. Low-dose coronary CT angiography with prospective ECG triggering: validation of a contrast material protocol adapted to body mass index. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 193(3):802-806.
55. Hirai N., Horiguchi J., Fujioka C., et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 248(2):424-430.
56. Marin D., Nelson R.C., Schindera S.T., et al. Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm-initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010, 254(1):145-153.
57. Thibault J., Sauer K.D., Bouman C.A., et al. A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 2007, 34(11):4526-4544.
58. Raff G.L., Chinnaiyan K.M., Share D.A., et al. Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Consortium Co-Investigators. Radiation dose from cardiac computed tomography before and after implementation of radiation dose-reduction techniques. JAMA 2009, 301(22):2340-2348.
59. European_Guidelines_Quality_Criteria_Computed_Tomography_Eur_16252.pdf [Internet]. Available at:, Accessed January 6, 2010. http://w3.tue.nl/fileadmin/sbd/Documenten/Leergang/BSM/European_Guidelines_Quality_Criteria_Computed_Tomography_Eur_16252.pdf.
60. Starck G., Lönn L., Cederblad A., et al. A method to obtain the same levels of CT image noise for patients of various sizes, to minimize radiation dose. Br J Radiol 2002, 75(890):140-150.
61. Jung B., Mahnken A.H., Stargardt A., et al. Individually weight-adapted examination protocol in retrospectively ECG-gated MSCT of the heart. Eur Radiol 2003, 13(12):2560-2566.
62. Tatsugami F., Husmann L., Herzog B.A., et al. Evaluation of a body mass index-adapted protocol for low-dose 64-MDCT coronary angiography with prospective ECG triggering. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192(3):635-638.
63. LaBounty T.M., Earls J., Leipsic J., et al. Estimated radiation dose of coronary computed tomography angiography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a multicenter study. Circulation 2009, 120:S334.
64. Hausleiter J., Meyer T., Hadamitzky M., et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 2006, 113(10):1305-1310.
65. Sigal-Cinqualbre A.B., Hennequin R., Abada H.T., et al. Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 2004, 231(1):169-174.
66. Paul J., Wartski M., Caussin C., et al. Late defect on delayed contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT scans in the prediction of SPECT infarct size after reperfused acute myocardial infarction: initial experience. Radiology 2005, 236(2):485-489.
67. Bischoff B., Hein F., Meyer T., et al. Impact of a reduced tube voltage on CT angiography and radiation dose: results of the PROTECTION I study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 2(8):940-946.
68. Wintersperger B., Jakobs T., Herzog P., et al. Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2005, 15(2):334-341.
69. Bakhsheshi H., Mao S., Budoff M.J., et al. Preview method for electron-beam CT scanning of the coronary arteries. Acad Radiol 2000, 7(8):620-626.
70. Budoff M. Maximizing dose reductions with cardiac CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 25(0):279-287. (formerly Cardiac Imaging).
71. Gunn M.L., Kanal K.M., Kolokythas O., et al. Radiation dose to the thyroid gland and breast from multidetector computed tomography of the cervical spine: does bismuth shielding with and without a cervical collar reduce dose?. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009, 33(6):987-990.
72. Fricke B.L., Donnelly L.F., Frush D.P., et al. In-plane bismuth breast shields for pediatric CT: effects on radiation dose and image quality using experimental and clinical data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 180(2):407-411.
73. Hopper K.D., King S.H., Lobell M.E., et al. The breast: in-plane x-ray protection during diagnostic thoracic CT-shielding with bismuth radioprotective garments. Radiology 1997, 205(3):853-858.
74. Yilmaz M.H., Yaşar D., Albayram S., et al. Coronary calcium scoring with MDCT: the radiation dose to the breast and the effectiveness of bismuth breast shield. Eur J Radiol 2007, 61(1):139-143.
75. Gutstein A., Wolak A., Lee C., et al. Predicting success of prospective and retrospective gating with dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography: development of selection criteria and initial experience. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2008, 2(2):81-90.
76. 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.
77. Earls J.P., Schrack E.C. Prospectively gated low-dose CCTA: 24 months experience in more than 2,000 clinical cases. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008, 25(S2):177-187.
78. Scheffel H., Alkadhi H., Leschka S., et al. Low-dose CT coronary angiography in the step-and-shoot mode: diagnostic performance. Heart 2008, 94(9):1132-1137.
79. Dewey M., Zimmermann E., Deissenrieder F., et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation 2009, 120(10):867-875.
80. Hoe J., Toh K.H. First experience with 320-row multidetector CT coronary angiography scanning with prospective electrocardiogram gating to reduce radiation dose. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009, 3(4):257-261.
81. Anders K., Baum U., Gauss S., et al. Rofo 2009, 181(4):332-338. [in German].
82. Arnoldi E., Johnson T.R., Rist C., et al. Adequate image quality with reduced radiation dose in prospectively triggered coronary CTA compared with retrospective techniques. Eur Radiol 2009, 19(9):2147-2155.
83. Stolzmann P., Scheffel H., Leschka S., et al. Influence of calcifications on diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography using prospective ECG triggering. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191(6):1684-1689.
84. Labounty TM, Leipsic J, Min J, et al. Effect of padding duration on radiation dose and image interpretation in prospectively ECG-triggered coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 194(4):933-937.
85. Herzog B.A., Husmann L., Burkhard N., et al. Low-dose CT coronary angiography using prospective ECG-triggering: impact of mean heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Acad Radiol 2009, 16(1):15-21.
86. Ko S.M., Kim N.R., Kim D.H., et al. Assessment of image quality and radiation dose in prospective ECG-triggered coronary CT angiography compared with retrospective ECG-gated coronary CT angiography [Internet]. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, Available at:, Accessed January 4, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20033490.
87. Xu L., Yang L., Zhang Z., et al. Low-dose adaptive sequential scan for dual-source CT coronary angiography in patients with high heart rate: Comparison with retrospective ECG gating. Eur J Radiol 2009, [Internet] Available at:, Accessed January 4, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19595528.
88. Silva A.C., Lawder H.J., Hara A., et al. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 194(1):191-199.
89. Gopal A, Mao SS, Karlsberg D, et al. Radiation reduction with prospective ECG-triggering acquisition using 64-multidetector Computed Tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 25(4):405-416.
90. Maruyama T, Takada M, Hasuike T, et al. 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 2008, 52(18):1450-1455.
91. DeFrance T, Dubois E, Gebow D, et al. Helical prospective ECG-gating in cardiac computed tomography: radiation dose and image quality. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010, 26(1):99-107.
92. Einstein AJ, Wolff SD, Manheimer ED, et al. Comparison of image quality and radiation dose of coronary computed tomographic angiography between conventional helical scanning and a strategy incorporating sequential scanning. Am J Cardiol 2009, 104(10):1343-1350.
93. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Burkhard N, et al. Low-dose CT coronary angiography using prospective ECG-triggering: impact of mean heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Acad Radiol 2009, 16(1):15-21.
94. Husmann L, Herzog BA, Gaemperli O, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography and evaluation of stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography hybrid imaging: comparison of prospective electrocardiogram-triggering vs. retrospective gating. Eur Heart J 2009, 30(5):600-607.
95. Husmann L, Herzog BA, Burger IA, et al. Usefulness of additional coronary calcium scoring in low-dose CT coronary angiography with prospective ECG-triggering impact on total effective radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy. Acad Radiol 2010, 17(2):201-206.
96. Klass O, Jeltsch M, Feuerlein S, et al. Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: preliminary experiences with a novel low-dose technique. Eur Radiol 2009, 19(4):829-836.
97. Weigold W, Olszewski M, Walker M, et al. Low-dose prospectively gated 256-slice coronary computed tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 25:217-230.
98. Efstathopoulos EP, Kelekis NL, Pantos I, et al. Reduction of the estimated radiation dose and associated patient risk with prospective ECG-gated 256-slice CT coronary angiography. Phys Med Biol 2009, 54(17):5209-5222.
99. Blankstein R, Shah A, Pale R, et al. Radiation dose and image quality of prospective triggering with dual-source cardiac computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2009, 103(8):1168-1173.
100. Hein F, Meyer T, Hadamitzk M, et al. Prospective ECG-triggered sequential scan protocol for coronary dual-source CT angiography: initial experience. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2009, 25:231-239.
101. Zhao L., Zhang Z., Fan Z., et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for dual source CT of the coronary stent: comparison of image quality, accuracy, and radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2009, [Epub ahead of print].