Dose levels at coronary CT angiography—a comparison of Dual Energy-, Dual Source- and 16-slice CT
Purpose To compare the dose estimates and image quality of Dual Energy CT (DECT), Dual Source CT (DSCT) and 16-slice CT for coronary CT angiography (cCTA). Methods Sixty-eight patients were examined with 16 - slice MDCT (group 1), 68 patients with DSCT (group 2) and 68 patients using DSCT in dual en...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2011-03, Vol.21 (3), p.530-537 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 537 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 530 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Kerl, J. Matthias Bauer, Ralf W. Maurer, Tobias B. Aschenbach, Rene Korkusuz, Huedayi Lehnert, Thomas Deseive, Simon Ackermann, Hanns Vogl, Thomas J. |
| description | Purpose
To compare the dose estimates and image quality of Dual Energy CT (DECT), Dual Source CT (DSCT) and 16-slice CT for coronary CT angiography (cCTA).
Methods
Sixty-eight patients were examined with 16 - slice MDCT (group 1), 68 patients with DSCT (group 2) and 68 patients using DSCT in dual energy mode (DECT group 3). CT dose index volume, dose length product, effective dose, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio were compared. Subjective image quality was rated by two observers, blinded to technique.
Results
The mean estimated radiation dose of all patients investigated on a 16 - slice MDCT was 12 ± 3.59 mSv, for DSCT in single energy 9.8 ± 4.77 mSv and for DECT 4.54 ± 1.87 mSv. Dose for CTA was significantly lower in group 3 compared to group 1 and 2. The image noise was significantly lower in Group 2 in comparison to group 1 and group 3. There was no significant difference in diagnostic image quality comparing DECT and DSCT.
Conclusion
cCTA shows better dose levels at both DECT and DSCT compared to 16-slice CT. Further, DECT delivers significantly less dose than regular DSCT or single source single energy cCTA while maintaining diagnostic image quality. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-010-1954-9 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_848693891</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2255007031</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-4d021afed5ff038e38e07319a486ab2cbb1636d0199bd76b6ebe18cb56baa0c23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM9KAzEQxoMoWqsP4EWCZ6MzmzS7OUrrPyh4sJ6XJJutle2mJl2hNx_CJ_RJjGzVkzAwDPN93yQ_Qk4QLhAgv4wAnAMDBIZqJJjaIQMUPGMIhdglA1C8YLlS4oAcxvgCAApFvk8OMihkJnI5IHbio6ONe3NNpHpNrQ--1WFDxzOq2_nCz4NePW8-3z902i1XOiyib6mv6aTTDb1uXZhv2Hk_PfouWMeSsaIoWWwW1qWgI7JX6ya6420fkqeb69n4jk0fbu_HV1NmBfI1ExVkqGtXjeoaeOFSQc5RaVFIbTJrDEouK0ClTJVLI51xWFgzkkZrsBkfkrM-dxX8a-fiunxJD2rTybJIGQmGwiTCXmSDjzG4ulyFxTL9uEQov6mWPdUSvudEtVTJc7oN7szSVb-OH4xJkPWCmFbt3IW_y_-nfgG2hIHv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>848693891</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dose levels at coronary CT angiography—a comparison of Dual Energy-, Dual Source- and 16-slice CT</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Kerl, J. Matthias ; Bauer, Ralf W. ; Maurer, Tobias B. ; Aschenbach, Rene ; Korkusuz, Huedayi ; Lehnert, Thomas ; Deseive, Simon ; Ackermann, Hanns ; Vogl, Thomas J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kerl, J. Matthias ; Bauer, Ralf W. ; Maurer, Tobias B. ; Aschenbach, Rene ; Korkusuz, Huedayi ; Lehnert, Thomas ; Deseive, Simon ; Ackermann, Hanns ; Vogl, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare the dose estimates and image quality of Dual Energy CT (DECT), Dual Source CT (DSCT) and 16-slice CT for coronary CT angiography (cCTA).
Methods
Sixty-eight patients were examined with 16 - slice MDCT (group 1), 68 patients with DSCT (group 2) and 68 patients using DSCT in dual energy mode (DECT group 3). CT dose index volume, dose length product, effective dose, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio were compared. Subjective image quality was rated by two observers, blinded to technique.
Results
The mean estimated radiation dose of all patients investigated on a 16 - slice MDCT was 12 ± 3.59 mSv, for DSCT in single energy 9.8 ± 4.77 mSv and for DECT 4.54 ± 1.87 mSv. Dose for CTA was significantly lower in group 3 compared to group 1 and 2. The image noise was significantly lower in Group 2 in comparison to group 1 and group 3. There was no significant difference in diagnostic image quality comparing DECT and DSCT.
Conclusion
cCTA shows better dose levels at both DECT and DSCT compared to 16-slice CT. Further, DECT delivers significantly less dose than regular DSCT or single source single energy cCTA while maintaining diagnostic image quality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1954-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20862476</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Aged ; Angina pectoris ; Body Burden ; Cardiac ; Cardiovascular disease ; Coronary Angiography - methods ; Coronary vessels ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Energy ; Female ; Heart rate ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neuroradiology ; Patients ; Radiation ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection - methods ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Ultrasound ; Vein & artery diseases</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2011-03, Vol.21 (3), p.530-537</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2010</rights><rights>European Society of Radiology 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-4d021afed5ff038e38e07319a486ab2cbb1636d0199bd76b6ebe18cb56baa0c23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-4d021afed5ff038e38e07319a486ab2cbb1636d0199bd76b6ebe18cb56baa0c23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-010-1954-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-010-1954-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20862476$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kerl, J. Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauer, Ralf W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Tobias B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aschenbach, Rene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Korkusuz, Huedayi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehnert, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deseive, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ackermann, Hanns</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogl, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><title>Dose levels at coronary CT angiography—a comparison of Dual Energy-, Dual Source- and 16-slice CT</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare the dose estimates and image quality of Dual Energy CT (DECT), Dual Source CT (DSCT) and 16-slice CT for coronary CT angiography (cCTA).
Methods
Sixty-eight patients were examined with 16 - slice MDCT (group 1), 68 patients with DSCT (group 2) and 68 patients using DSCT in dual energy mode (DECT group 3). CT dose index volume, dose length product, effective dose, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio were compared. Subjective image quality was rated by two observers, blinded to technique.
Results
The mean estimated radiation dose of all patients investigated on a 16 - slice MDCT was 12 ± 3.59 mSv, for DSCT in single energy 9.8 ± 4.77 mSv and for DECT 4.54 ± 1.87 mSv. Dose for CTA was significantly lower in group 3 compared to group 1 and 2. The image noise was significantly lower in Group 2 in comparison to group 1 and group 3. There was no significant difference in diagnostic image quality comparing DECT and DSCT.
Conclusion
cCTA shows better dose levels at both DECT and DSCT compared to 16-slice CT. Further, DECT delivers significantly less dose than regular DSCT or single source single energy cCTA while maintaining diagnostic image quality.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Angina pectoris</subject><subject>Body Burden</subject><subject>Cardiac</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Coronary Angiography - methods</subject><subject>Coronary vessels</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart rate</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection - methods</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Vein & artery diseases</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM9KAzEQxoMoWqsP4EWCZ6MzmzS7OUrrPyh4sJ6XJJutle2mJl2hNx_CJ_RJjGzVkzAwDPN93yQ_Qk4QLhAgv4wAnAMDBIZqJJjaIQMUPGMIhdglA1C8YLlS4oAcxvgCAApFvk8OMihkJnI5IHbio6ONe3NNpHpNrQ--1WFDxzOq2_nCz4NePW8-3z902i1XOiyib6mv6aTTDb1uXZhv2Hk_PfouWMeSsaIoWWwW1qWgI7JX6ya6420fkqeb69n4jk0fbu_HV1NmBfI1ExVkqGtXjeoaeOFSQc5RaVFIbTJrDEouK0ClTJVLI51xWFgzkkZrsBkfkrM-dxX8a-fiunxJD2rTybJIGQmGwiTCXmSDjzG4ulyFxTL9uEQov6mWPdUSvudEtVTJc7oN7szSVb-OH4xJkPWCmFbt3IW_y_-nfgG2hIHv</recordid><startdate>20110301</startdate><enddate>20110301</enddate><creator>Kerl, J. Matthias</creator><creator>Bauer, Ralf W.</creator><creator>Maurer, Tobias B.</creator><creator>Aschenbach, Rene</creator><creator>Korkusuz, Huedayi</creator><creator>Lehnert, Thomas</creator><creator>Deseive, Simon</creator><creator>Ackermann, Hanns</creator><creator>Vogl, Thomas J.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110301</creationdate><title>Dose levels at coronary CT angiography—a comparison of Dual Energy-, Dual Source- and 16-slice CT</title><author>Kerl, J. Matthias ; Bauer, Ralf W. ; Maurer, Tobias B. ; Aschenbach, Rene ; Korkusuz, Huedayi ; Lehnert, Thomas ; Deseive, Simon ; Ackermann, Hanns ; Vogl, Thomas J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-4d021afed5ff038e38e07319a486ab2cbb1636d0199bd76b6ebe18cb56baa0c23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Angina pectoris</topic><topic>Body Burden</topic><topic>Cardiac</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Coronary Angiography - methods</topic><topic>Coronary vessels</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart rate</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection - methods</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Vein & artery diseases</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kerl, J. Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauer, Ralf W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Tobias B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aschenbach, Rene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Korkusuz, Huedayi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehnert, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deseive, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ackermann, Hanns</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogl, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kerl, J. Matthias</au><au>Bauer, Ralf W.</au><au>Maurer, Tobias B.</au><au>Aschenbach, Rene</au><au>Korkusuz, Huedayi</au><au>Lehnert, Thomas</au><au>Deseive, Simon</au><au>Ackermann, Hanns</au><au>Vogl, Thomas J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dose levels at coronary CT angiography—a comparison of Dual Energy-, Dual Source- and 16-slice CT</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2011-03-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>530</spage><epage>537</epage><pages>530-537</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare the dose estimates and image quality of Dual Energy CT (DECT), Dual Source CT (DSCT) and 16-slice CT for coronary CT angiography (cCTA).
Methods
Sixty-eight patients were examined with 16 - slice MDCT (group 1), 68 patients with DSCT (group 2) and 68 patients using DSCT in dual energy mode (DECT group 3). CT dose index volume, dose length product, effective dose, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio were compared. Subjective image quality was rated by two observers, blinded to technique.
Results
The mean estimated radiation dose of all patients investigated on a 16 - slice MDCT was 12 ± 3.59 mSv, for DSCT in single energy 9.8 ± 4.77 mSv and for DECT 4.54 ± 1.87 mSv. Dose for CTA was significantly lower in group 3 compared to group 1 and 2. The image noise was significantly lower in Group 2 in comparison to group 1 and group 3. There was no significant difference in diagnostic image quality comparing DECT and DSCT.
Conclusion
cCTA shows better dose levels at both DECT and DSCT compared to 16-slice CT. Further, DECT delivers significantly less dose than regular DSCT or single source single energy cCTA while maintaining diagnostic image quality.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20862476</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-010-1954-9</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2011-03, Vol.21 (3), p.530-537 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_848693891 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Aged Angina pectoris Body Burden Cardiac Cardiovascular disease Coronary Angiography - methods Coronary vessels Diagnostic Radiology Energy Female Heart rate Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Male Medical imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neuroradiology Patients Radiation Radiation Dosage Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection - methods Radiology Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Ultrasound Vein & artery diseases |
| title | Dose levels at coronary CT angiography—a comparison of Dual Energy-, Dual Source- and 16-slice CT |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T14%3A46%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dose%20levels%20at%20coronary%20CT%20angiography%E2%80%94a%20comparison%20of%20Dual%20Energy-,%20Dual%20Source-%20and%2016-slice%20CT&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Kerl,%20J.%20Matthias&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=530&rft.epage=537&rft.pages=530-537&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-010-1954-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2255007031%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=848693891&rft_id=info:pmid/20862476&rfr_iscdi=true |