Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Current Cardiology Reports 1/2010

01-01-2010

Radiation Dose Reduction in CT Coronary Angiography

Authors: Brian P. Shapiro, Phillip M. Young, Birgit Kantor, Yeon Hyeon Choe, Cynthia H. McCollough, Thomas C. Gerber

Published in: Current Cardiology Reports | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

During recent years, technologic advancements in computed tomography (CT) have allowed robust cardiac and coronary imaging. Small, mobile cardiac structures such as the coronary arteries can now be imaged directly and noninvasively with high precision. Given the fact that coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can detect preclinical calcified and noncalcified atherosclerosis, there is potential to revolutionize the management of ischemic heart disease by refining risk stratification and improving outcomes in various clinical settings. However, despite this progress, CT has come under scrutiny as concerns about the level and risk of the radiation exposure of the population grow. Although there are no data to support a direct association between CT imaging and risk of future cancer, health care practitioners should make every effort to minimize radiation exposure to their patients. The purpose of this article is to describe techniques that can reduce radiation dose to patients during CCTA but maintain diagnostic image quality.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Thom T, Haase N, Rosamond W, et al.: Heart disease and stroke statistics—2006 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2006, 113:e85–e151.CrossRefPubMed Thom T, Haase N, Rosamond W, et al.: Heart disease and stroke statistics—2006 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2006, 113:e85–e151.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 33:1756–1824.CrossRefPubMed Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 33:1756–1824.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P, et al.: Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:1896–1910.CrossRefPubMed Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P, et al.: Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:1896–1910.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference •• Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, et al.: Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation 2009, 119:1056–1065. This is the official document from the American Heart Association that discusses appropriate reporting of radiation dose and risks, provides a framework for addressing the risks and benefits of cardiac imaging with modalities that use ionizing radiation, and makes general recommendations for their safe use.CrossRefPubMed •• Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, et al.: Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation 2009, 119:1056–1065. This is the official document from the American Heart Association that discusses appropriate reporting of radiation dose and risks, provides a framework for addressing the risks and benefits of cardiac imaging with modalities that use ionizing radiation, and makes general recommendations for their safe use.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference • Einstein AJ: Radiation protection of patients undergoing cardiac computed tomographic angiography. JAMA 2009, 301:545–547. This paper discusses potential barriers to the implementation of dose-sparing cardiac CT protocols.CrossRefPubMed • Einstein AJ: Radiation protection of patients undergoing cardiac computed tomographic angiography. JAMA 2009, 301:545–547. This paper discusses potential barriers to the implementation of dose-sparing cardiac CT protocols.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference • Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al.: Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009, 361:849–857. This paper discusses the cumulative effective radiation dose received from medical imaging in five major health care markets across the United States based on insurance claims.CrossRefPubMed • Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al.: Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009, 361:849–857. This paper discusses the cumulative effective radiation dose received from medical imaging in five major health care markets across the United States based on insurance claims.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Zanzonico P, Rothenberg LN, Strauss HW: Radiation exposure of computed tomography and direct intracoronary angiography: risk has its reward. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:1846–1849.CrossRefPubMed Zanzonico P, Rothenberg LN, Strauss HW: Radiation exposure of computed tomography and direct intracoronary angiography: risk has its reward. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:1846–1849.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference •• 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. This article showed that education on the “best practice” model of CCTA can lower median CCTA radiation received at institutions that participated in an advanced imaging consortium.CrossRefPubMed •• 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. This article showed that education on the “best practice” model of CCTA can lower median CCTA radiation received at institutions that participated in an advanced imaging consortium.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Kim KP, Einstein AJ, Berrington de Gonzalez A: Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169:1188–1194.CrossRefPubMed Kim KP, Einstein AJ, Berrington de Gonzalez A: Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169:1188–1194.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference •• Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al.: Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009, 301:500–507. This article showed that CCTA radiation dose varies widely between institutions, and that the most potent radiation dose strategies were implemented in only a very small fraction of patients.CrossRefPubMed •• Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al.: Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009, 301:500–507. This article showed that CCTA radiation dose varies widely between institutions, and that the most potent radiation dose strategies were implemented in only a very small fraction of patients.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference •• Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S: Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007, 298:317–323. This paper provided estimates for lifetime attributable risk of cancer following coronary CT angiography based on the linear no-threshold hypothesis in men and women of varying ages.CrossRefPubMed •• Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S: Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007, 298:317–323. This paper provided estimates for lifetime attributable risk of cancer following coronary CT angiography based on the linear no-threshold hypothesis in men and women of varying ages.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference •• Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Board on Radiation Effects Research, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies: Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies; 2006. This crucially important document summarizes current information on the risks of low-level radiation and endorses the linear no-threshold hypothesis. •• Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Board on Radiation Effects Research, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies: Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies; 2006. This crucially important document summarizes current information on the risks of low-level radiation and endorses the linear no-threshold hypothesis.
14.
go back to reference Valentin J: Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. Ann ICRP 2005, 35:1–140. Valentin J: Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. Ann ICRP 2005, 35:1–140.
15.
go back to reference Pepine CJ, Allen HD, Bashore TM, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac catheterization and cardiac catheterization laboratories. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Ad Hoc Task Force on Cardiac Catheterization. Circulation 1991, 84:2213–2247.PubMed Pepine CJ, Allen HD, Bashore TM, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for cardiac catheterization and cardiac catheterization laboratories. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Ad Hoc Task Force on Cardiac Catheterization. Circulation 1991, 84:2213–2247.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, et al.: ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology endorsed by the American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:1587–1605.CrossRefPubMed Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, et al.: ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology endorsed by the American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:1587–1605.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference •• 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. This critical document highlights the primary appropriate criteria for ordering CCTA. •• 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. This critical document highlights the primary appropriate criteria for ordering CCTA.
18.
go back to reference Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, et al.: Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Circulation 2008, 118:586–606.CrossRefPubMed Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, et al.: Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Circulation 2008, 118:586–606.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, et al.: Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007, 116:1290–1305.CrossRefPubMed Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, et al.: Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007, 116:1290–1305.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G: Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000, 217:430–435.PubMed Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G: Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000, 217:430–435.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Gerber TC, Kuzo RS, Karstaedt N, et al.: Current results and new developments of coronary angiography with use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the heart. Mayo Clin Proc 2002, 77:55–71.CrossRefPubMed Gerber TC, Kuzo RS, Karstaedt N, et al.: Current results and new developments of coronary angiography with use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the heart. Mayo Clin Proc 2002, 77:55–71.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference 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, 16:15–21.CrossRefPubMed 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, 16:15–21.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al.: Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 246:742–753.CrossRefPubMed Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al.: Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 246:742–753.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Kaufmann PA: Low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography with prospective triggering: a promise for the future. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:1456–1457.CrossRefPubMed Kaufmann PA: Low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography with prospective triggering: a promise for the future. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:1456–1457.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, 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.CrossRefPubMed Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, 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.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Achenbach S, Anders K, Kalender WA: Dual-source cardiac computed tomography: image quality and dose considerations. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:1188–1198.CrossRefPubMed Achenbach S, Anders K, Kalender WA: Dual-source cardiac computed tomography: image quality and dose considerations. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:1188–1198.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Leschka S, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, et al.: Image quality and reconstruction intervals of dual-source CT coronary angiography: recommendations for ECG-pulsing windowing. Invest Radiol 2007, 42:543–549.CrossRefPubMed Leschka S, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, et al.: Image quality and reconstruction intervals of dual-source CT coronary angiography: recommendations for ECG-pulsing windowing. Invest Radiol 2007, 42:543–549.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al.: First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006, 16:256–268.CrossRefPubMed Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al.: First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006, 16:256–268.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Hein PA, Romano VC, Lembcke A, et al.: Initial experience with a chest pain protocol using 320-slice volume MDCT. Eur Radiol 2009, 19:1148–1155.CrossRefPubMed Hein PA, Romano VC, Lembcke A, et al.: Initial experience with a chest pain protocol using 320-slice volume MDCT. Eur Radiol 2009, 19:1148–1155.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference 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, 52:1450–1455.CrossRefPubMed 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, 52:1450–1455.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Radiation Dose Reduction in CT Coronary Angiography
Authors
Brian P. Shapiro
Phillip M. Young
Birgit Kantor
Yeon Hyeon Choe
Cynthia H. McCollough
Thomas C. Gerber
Publication date
01-01-2010
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 1523-3782
Electronic ISSN: 1534-3170
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-009-0074-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Current Cardiology Reports 1/2010 Go to the issue