Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal
Volume 61, Issue 5 , Pages 271-279 , December 2010

Strategies for Radiation-dose Reduction and Image-quality Optimization in Multidetector Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography

  • Felipe S. Torres, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Felipe S. Torres, MD, Division of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2N2, Canada.
    • ,
  • Andrew M. Crean, MD, MRCP, FRCR
    • ,
  • Elsie T. Nguyen, MD, FRCPC
    • ,
  • Narinder Paul, MD, MRCP (UK), FRCR, FCPC

References 

  1. Flohr TG, Raupach R, Bruder H, Cardiac CT. how much can temporal resolution, spatial resolution, and volume coverage be improved?. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3:143–152
  2. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, 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;48:1475–1497
  3. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S, et al. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007;298:317–323
  4. Weinreb JC, Larson PA, Woodard PK, et al. American College of Radiology clinical statement on noninvasive cardiac imaging. Radiology. 2005;235:723–727
  5. Dennie CJ, Leipsic J, Brydie A. Canadian Association of Radiologists: consensus guidelines and standards for cardiac CT. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2009;60:19–34
  6. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, 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;114:1761–1791
  7. Torres FS, Crean AM, Nguyen ET, et al. Abolition of respiratory-motion artifact in computed tomography coronary angiography with ultrafast examinations: a comparison between 64-row and 320-row multidetector scanners. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2010;61:5–12
  8. Nakanishi T, Kayashima Y, Inoue R, et al. Pitfalls in 16-detector Row CT of the coronary arteries. Radiographics. 2005;25:425–440
  9. Raff GL, Chinnaiyan KM, Share DA, et al. Radiation dose from cardiac computed tomography before and after implementation of radiation dose-reduction techniques. JAMA. 2009;301:2340–2348
  10. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:256–268
  11. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch dual source CT for the assessment of coronary stenosis: first experience. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2896–2903
  12. Mao S, Lu B, Oudiz RJ, et al. Coronary artery motion in electron beam tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:253–258
  13. Pannu HK, Alvarez W, Fishman EK. β-Blockers for cardiac CT: a primer for the radiologist. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(Suppl 2):S341–S345
  14. Reiter MJ. Cardiovascular drug class specificity: beta-blockers. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2004;47:11–33
  15. Kirchheiner J, Heesch C, Bauer S, et al. Impact of the ultrarapid metabolizer genotype of cytochrome P450 2D6 on metoprolol pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004;76:302–312
  16. Schoepf UJ, Zwerner PL, Savine G, et al. Coronary CT angiography. Radiology. 2007;244:48–63
  17. Oudkerk M, Stillman AE, Halliburton SS, et al. Coronary artery calcium screening: current status and recommendations from the European Society of Cardiac Radiology and North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2785–2807
  18. Palumbo AA, Maffei E, Martini C, et al. Coronary calcium score as gatekeeper for 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with chest pain: per-segment and per-patient analysis. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2127–2135
  19. McCoullough CH, Ulzheimer A, Halliburton SS, et al. Coronary artery calcium: a multi-institutional, multimanufacturer international standard for quantification at cardiac CT. Radiology. 2007;243:527–538
  20. Halliburton SS, Stillman AE, Lieber M, et al. Potential clinical impact of variability in the measurement of coronary artery calcification with sequential MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:643–648
  21. Matsuura N, Horiguchi J, Yamamoto H, et al. Optimal cardiac phase for coronary artery calcium scoring on single-source 64-MDCT scanner: least interscan variability and least motion artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1561–1568
  22. Kim KP, Einstein AJ, de Gonzalez AB. Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1188–1194
  23. Shapiro MD, Pena AJ, Nichols JH, et al. Efficacy of pre-scan beta-blockade and impact of heart rate on image quality in patients undergoing coronary multidetector computed tomography angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66:37–41
  24. Pannu HK, Sullivan C, Lai S, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of oral beta-blockade in patients for coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008;32:247–251
  25. Feldman RL, Marx JD, Pepine CJ, et al. Analysis of coronary responses to various doses of intracoronary nitroglycerin. Circulation. 1982;66:321–327
  26. Decramer I, Vanhoenacker PK, Sarno G, et al. Effects of sublingual nitroglycerin on coronary lumen diameter and number of visualized septal branches on 64-MDCT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:219–225
  27. Klass O, Mutlu S, Hohl K, et al. Multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography: sublingual nitroglycerine improves image quality significantly because of peripheral coronary vasodilatation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33:199–203
  28. Sato K, Isobe S, Sugiura K, et al. Optimal starting time of acquisition and feasibility of complementary administration of nitroglycerin with intravenous beta-blocker in multislice computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33:193–198
  29. Becker CR, Hong C, Knez A, et al. Optimal contrast application for cardiac 4-detector row computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:690–694
  30. Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, van der Lugt A, et al. Intravenous contrast material administration at helical 16-detector row CT coronary angiography: effect of iodine concentration on vascular attenuation. Radiology. 2005;236:661–665
  31. Johnson TRC, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ, et al. Optimization of contrast material administration for electrocardiogram-gated computed tomographic angiography of the chest. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31:265–271
  32. Bae KT, Seek BA, Hildebolt CF, et al. Contrast enhancement in cardiovascular MDCT: effect of body weight, height, body surface area, body mass index, and obesity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:777–784
  33. Cademartiri F, Nieman K, van der Lugt A, et al. Intravenous contrast material administration at 16-detector row helical CT coronary angiography: test bolus versus bolus-tracking technique. Radiology. 2004;233:817–823
  34. Bae KT. Test-bolus versus bolus-tracking techniques for CT angiographic timing. Radiology. 2005;236:369–370
  35. Bae KT, Heiken JP. Scan and contrast administration principles of MDCT. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(Suppl 5):E46–E59
  36. Johnson PT, Pannu HK, Fishman EK. IV contrast infusion for coronary artery CT angiography: literature review and results of a nationwide survey. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:W214–W221
  37. Jung B, Mahnken AH, Stargardt A, et al. Individually weight-adapted examination protocol in retrospectively ECG-gated MSCT of the heart. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2560–2566
  38. Lund GK, Wegian E, Saeed M, et al. 64-Slice spiral computed tomography of the coronary arteries: dose reduction using an optimized imaging protocol including individual weight-adaptation of voltage and current-time product. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1132–1138
  39. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, et al. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1809–1817
  40. Pflederer T, Rudofsky L, Ropers D, et al. Image quality in a low radiation exposure protocol for retrospectively ECG-gated coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1045–1050
  41. 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;113:1305–1310
  42. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA. 2009;301:500–507
  43. Weustink AC, Mollet NR, Neefjes LA, et al. Preserved diagnostic performance of dual-source CT coronary angiography with reduced radiation exposure and cancer risk. Radiology. 2009;252:53–60
  44. 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;103:1168–1173
  45. 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;248:424–430
  46. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JA, 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;248:431–437
  47. Steigner ML, Otero HJ, 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;25:85–90
  48. Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, et al. Radiation dose of cardiac dual-source CT: the effect of tailoring the protocol to patient-specific parameters. Eur J Radiol. 2008;68:385–391
  49. Bakhsheshi H, Mao S, Budoff MJ, et al. Preview method for electron-beam CT scanning of the coronary arteries. Acad Radiol. 2000;7:620–626
  50. Gopal A, Budoff MJ. A new method to reduce radiation exposure during multi-row detector cardiac computed tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiol. 2009;132:435–436
  51. Li J, Udayasankar UK, Toth TL, et al. Automatic patient centering for MDCT: effect on radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:547–552
  52. Suzuki S, Furui S, Kaminaga T, et al. Measurement of vascular diameter in vitro by automated software for CT angiography: effects of inner diameter, density of contrast medium, and convolution kernel. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:1313–1317
  53. Cademartiri F, La Grutta L, Runza G, et al. Influence of convolution filtering on coronary plaque attenuation values: observations in an ex-vivo model of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1842–1849
  54. Seifarth H, Raupach R, Schaller S, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stents using 16-slice MDCT angiography: evaluation of a dedicated reconstruction kernel and a noise reduction filter. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:721–726
  55. Maintz D, Burg MC, Seifarth H, et al. Update on multidetector coronary CT angiography of coronary stents: in vitro evaluation of 29 different stent types with dual-source CT. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:42–49

PII: S0846-5371(09)00243-5

doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2009.11.013

Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal
Volume 61, Issue 5 , Pages 271-279 , December 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution