These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Radiation exposure related to cardiovascular CT examination: comparison between conventional 64-MDCT and third-generation dual-source MDCT.
    Author: Agliata G, Schicchi N, Agostini A, Fogante M, Mari A, Maggi S, Giovagnoni A.
    Journal: Radiol Med; 2019 Aug; 124(8):753-761. PubMed ID: 31011995.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare radiation exposure associated with daily practice cardiovascular (CV) examinations performed on two different multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanners, a conventional 64-MDCT and a third-generation dual-source (DS) MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 1458 patients who underwent CV examinations between January 2017 and August 2018 were enrolled. A single-source 64-MDCT (Lightspeed VCT, GE) scan was performed in 705 patients from January to August 2017 (207 coronary examinations and 498 vascular examinations) and 753 patients underwent third-generation 192 × 2-DSCT (Somatom FORCE, Siemens) scan from January to August 2018 (302 coronary examinations and 451 vascular examinations). Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose length product (DLP), effective dose (ED), tube voltage (TV) and exposure time (ET), pitch factor (PF) were registered for each patient. Student's t test was used to compare mean values between each corresponding group of MDCT and DSCT. RESULTS: In coronary examinations with DSCT, CTDIvol was 24.4% lower (23.1 mGy vs 30.6 mGy, p < 0.0001) and DLP and ED reductions were 35.6% than with MDCT (465.0 mGy * cm vs 732.3 mGy * cm and 6.5 mSv and 10.3 mSv; vs p < 0.0001). Concerning scan parameters, kVp and ET reductions were 12.7% and 69.4%, respectively (p < 0.0001); PF increase was 73.8% (p < 0.0001). In all vascular studies, DSCT, compared with MDCT, permitted to reduce CTDIvol from 43.5 to 70.6%; DLP and ED reductions were from 50.3 to 73.1%; kVp and ET decreases were from 10.7 to 32.5% and from 26.3 to 68.7%. PF increase was from 16.7 to 58.1% (all differences with p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In daily practice, CV examinations CTDI, DLP, ED, ET and TV were lower and PF was higher with 192 × 2-DSCT compared to 64-MDCT.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]