We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Triple-rule-out dual-source CT angiography of patients with acute chest pain: dose reduction potential of 100 kV scanning.
European Journal of Radiology 2012 December
PURPOSE: To investigate the dose reduction potential of low kV triple-rule-out dual-source CT angiography (TRO-CTA) in non-obese (BMI ≤ 25 kg/m(2)) patients with acute chest pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were randomly assigned to two different retrospectively ECG-gated TRO-CTA protocols in this prospective trial: Thirty patients were examined with a 120-kV standard protocol (320 reference mAs with automatic tube current modulation, automatically adapted pitch and ECG-pulsing) and served as the control group (group 1), an otherwise identical 100 kV protocol was used in the other thirty patients (group 2) for a radiation dose reduction. Subjective image quality was assessed on a 5 point scale (1: excellent, 5: non-diagnostic) by two blinded observers. Quantitative image analysis assessed vascular attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in different vascular segments. The effective dose was calculated from the dose length product (DLP) using a conversion coefficient of 0.017 mSvmGy(-1)cm(-1).
RESULTS: There was no significant difference of age, BMI, heart rate, pitch or scan length between both patient groups. Subjective image quality was rated similar in both groups (group 1: 1.2 ± 0.4, group 2: average score=1.3 ± 0.5). Vessel attenuation was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (ascending aorta: 456 ± 83 HU vs. 370 ± 78 HU, p<0.001; pulmonary artery: 468 ± 118 HU vs. 411 ± 91 HU, p=0.03; left coronary artery: 437 ± 110 HU vs. 348 ± 89 HU, p<0.001), however, there was no significant difference in SNR (13.2 ± 7.6 vs. 14.5 ± 7.5, p=0.49) or CNR (13.8 ± 6.6 vs. 15.9 ± 7.7, p=0.25). The effective radiation dose of the 100 kV protocol was significantly lower (9.6 ± 3.2 mSv vs. 18.1 ± 9.4 mSv, p<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: TRO-CTA with 100 kV is feasible in non-obese patients and results in diagnostic image quality and significantly reduced radiation dose.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were randomly assigned to two different retrospectively ECG-gated TRO-CTA protocols in this prospective trial: Thirty patients were examined with a 120-kV standard protocol (320 reference mAs with automatic tube current modulation, automatically adapted pitch and ECG-pulsing) and served as the control group (group 1), an otherwise identical 100 kV protocol was used in the other thirty patients (group 2) for a radiation dose reduction. Subjective image quality was assessed on a 5 point scale (1: excellent, 5: non-diagnostic) by two blinded observers. Quantitative image analysis assessed vascular attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in different vascular segments. The effective dose was calculated from the dose length product (DLP) using a conversion coefficient of 0.017 mSvmGy(-1)cm(-1).
RESULTS: There was no significant difference of age, BMI, heart rate, pitch or scan length between both patient groups. Subjective image quality was rated similar in both groups (group 1: 1.2 ± 0.4, group 2: average score=1.3 ± 0.5). Vessel attenuation was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (ascending aorta: 456 ± 83 HU vs. 370 ± 78 HU, p<0.001; pulmonary artery: 468 ± 118 HU vs. 411 ± 91 HU, p=0.03; left coronary artery: 437 ± 110 HU vs. 348 ± 89 HU, p<0.001), however, there was no significant difference in SNR (13.2 ± 7.6 vs. 14.5 ± 7.5, p=0.49) or CNR (13.8 ± 6.6 vs. 15.9 ± 7.7, p=0.25). The effective radiation dose of the 100 kV protocol was significantly lower (9.6 ± 3.2 mSv vs. 18.1 ± 9.4 mSv, p<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: TRO-CTA with 100 kV is feasible in non-obese patients and results in diagnostic image quality and significantly reduced radiation dose.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app