Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 2/2006

Open Access 01-09-2006 | ALARA

Conventional and CT angiography in children: dosimetry and dose comparisons

Authors: Donald P. Frush, Terry Yoshizumi

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Special Issue 2/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Tremendous advances have been made in imaging in children with both congenital and acquired heart disease. These include technical advances in cardiac catheterization and conventional angiography, especially with advancements in interventional procedures, as well as noninvasive imaging with MR and CT angiography. With rapid advances in multidetector CT (MDCT) technology, most recently 64-detector array systems (64-slice MDCT), have come a number of advantages over MR. However, both conventional and CT angiography impart radiation dose to children. Although the presence of radiation exposure to children has long been recognized, it is apparent that our ability to assess this dose, particularly in light of the rapid advancements, has been limited. Traditional methods of dosimetry for both conventional and CT angiography are somewhat cumbersome or involve a potential for substantial uncertainty. Recent developments in dosimetry, including metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFET) and the availability of anthropomorphic, tissue-equivalent phantoms have provided new opportunities for dosimetric assessments. Recent work with this technology in state-of-the-art cardiac angiography suites as well as with MDCT have offered direct comparisons of doses in infants and children undergoing diagnostic cardiac evaluation. It is with these dose data that assessment of risks, and ultimately the assessment of risk-benefit, can be better achieved.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, et al (2001) Skin injuries from fluoroscopically-guided procedures. AJR 177:3–0PubMed Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, et al (2001) Skin injuries from fluoroscopically-guided procedures. AJR 177:3–0PubMed
3.
go back to reference Frush DP (2004) Computed tomography. Advance for Imaging and Oncology Administrators 14:13–0 Frush DP (2004) Computed tomography. Advance for Imaging and Oncology Administrators 14:13–0
4.
go back to reference Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289–96PubMed Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 176:289–96PubMed
5.
go back to reference Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2001) Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR 176:297–01PubMed Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2001) Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR 176:297–01PubMed
6.
go back to reference Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al (2001) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR 176:303–06PubMed Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al (2001) Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children’s hospital. AJR 176:303–06PubMed
9.
go back to reference Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W, et al (2006) American Academy of Pediatrics clinical report: radiation risk to children from CT imaging. Pediatrics (in press) Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W, et al (2006) American Academy of Pediatrics clinical report: radiation risk to children from CT imaging. Pediatrics (in press)
11.
13.
go back to reference Brenner DJ (2005) Letter to the editor: is it time to retire the CTDI for CT quality assurance and dose optimization? Med Phys 32:3225–226CrossRefPubMed Brenner DJ (2005) Letter to the editor: is it time to retire the CTDI for CT quality assurance and dose optimization? Med Phys 32:3225–226CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Frush DP, Applegate K (2004) Computed tomography and radiation: understanding the issues. J Am Coll Radiol 1:113–19CrossRefPubMed Frush DP, Applegate K (2004) Computed tomography and radiation: understanding the issues. J Am Coll Radiol 1:113–19CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Axelsson B, Khalil C, Lidegran M, et al (1999) Estimating the effective dose to children undergoing heart investigations –a phantom study. Br J Radiol 72:378–83PubMed Axelsson B, Khalil C, Lidegran M, et al (1999) Estimating the effective dose to children undergoing heart investigations –a phantom study. Br J Radiol 72:378–83PubMed
16.
go back to reference Schmidt PW, Dance DR, Skinner CL, et al (2000) Conversion factors for the estimation of effective dose in paediatric cardiac angiography. Phys Med Biol 45:3095–107CrossRefPubMed Schmidt PW, Dance DR, Skinner CL, et al (2000) Conversion factors for the estimation of effective dose in paediatric cardiac angiography. Phys Med Biol 45:3095–107CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Campbell RM, Strieper MJ, Frias PA, et al (2005) Quantifying and minimizing radiation exposure during pediatric cardiac catheterization. Pediatr Cardiol 26:29–3CrossRefPubMed Campbell RM, Strieper MJ, Frias PA, et al (2005) Quantifying and minimizing radiation exposure during pediatric cardiac catheterization. Pediatr Cardiol 26:29–3CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Bacher K, Bogaert E, Lapere R, et al (2005) Patient-specific dose and radiation risk estimation in pediatric cardiac catheterization. Circulation 111:83–9CrossRefPubMed Bacher K, Bogaert E, Lapere R, et al (2005) Patient-specific dose and radiation risk estimation in pediatric cardiac catheterization. Circulation 111:83–9CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Schultz FW, Geleijns J, Spoelstra FM, et al (2003) Monte Carlo calculations for assessment of radiation does to patients with congenital heart defects and to staff during cardiac catheterizations. Br J Radiol 76:638–47CrossRefPubMed Schultz FW, Geleijns J, Spoelstra FM, et al (2003) Monte Carlo calculations for assessment of radiation does to patients with congenital heart defects and to staff during cardiac catheterizations. Br J Radiol 76:638–47CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Rassow J, Schmaltz AA, Hentrich F, et al (2000) Effective doses to patients from paediatric cardiac catheterization. Br J Radiol 73:172–83PubMed Rassow J, Schmaltz AA, Hentrich F, et al (2000) Effective doses to patients from paediatric cardiac catheterization. Br J Radiol 73:172–83PubMed
21.
go back to reference Boothroyd A, McDonald E, Moores BM, et al (1997) Radiation exposure to children during cardiac catheterization. Br J Radiol 70:180–85PubMed Boothroyd A, McDonald E, Moores BM, et al (1997) Radiation exposure to children during cardiac catheterization. Br J Radiol 70:180–85PubMed
Metadata
Title
Conventional and CT angiography in children: dosimetry and dose comparisons
Authors
Donald P. Frush
Terry Yoshizumi
Publication date
01-09-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue Special Issue 2/2006
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-006-0190-6

Other articles of this Special Issue 2/2006

Pediatric Radiology 2/2006 Go to the issue