Low-dose cardiac imaging: reducing exposure but not accuracy

References

• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement Report 160. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, MD, USA (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Schauer DA, Linton OW. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology253(2), 293–296 (2009).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 2011 CT Census Market Summary Report. CT Census and Market Summary Report. Des Planes, IL, USA (2011).
   Google Scholar
• 2008 Nuclear Medicine Census and Market Summary Report. Nuclear Medicine Census and Market Summary Report. Des Planes, IL, USA (2008).
   Google Scholar
• 2009 Cardiac Catherization Census and Market Summary Report. Cardiac Catherization Census and Market Summary Report. Des Planes, IL, USA (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Einstein AJ. Medical imaging: the radiation issue. Nat. Rev. Cardiol.6(6), 436–438 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Einstein AJ, Fazel R et al. Cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac imaging procedures: a population-based analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.56(9), 702–711 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber TC, Gibbons RJ. Weighing the risks and benefits of cardiac imaging with ionizing radiation. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging3(5), 528–535 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N. Engl. J. Med.357(22), 2277–2284 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirshfeld JW Jr, Balter S, Brinker JA et al. ACCF/AHA/HRS/SCAI clinical competence statement on physician knowledge to optimize patient safety and image quality in fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiovascular procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. Circulation111(4), 511–532 (2005).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small GR, Kazmi M, deKemp RA, Chow BJ. Established and emerging dose reduction methods in cardiac computed tomography. J. Nucl. Cardiol.18(4), 570–579 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuon E. Radiation exposure in invasive cardiology. Heart94(5), 667–674 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL. The future of SPECT MPI: time and dose reduction. J. Nucl. Cardiol.18(4), 580–587 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Brateman L. Radiation safety considerations for diagnostic radiology personnel. Radiographics19(4), 1037–1055 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation116(11), 1290–1305 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einstein AJ, Knuuti J. Cardiac imaging: does radiation matter? Eur. Heart J. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr281 (2011) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• 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. Circulation119(7), 1056–1065 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laskey WK, Feinendegen LE, Neumann RD, Dilsizian V. Low-level ionizing radiation from noninvasive cardiac imaging: can we extrapolate estimated risks from epidemiologic data to the clinical setting? JACC. Cardiovasc. Imaging3(5), 517–524 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Gosling O, Loader R, Venables P, Rowles N, Morgan-Hughes G, Roobottom C. Cardiac CT: are we underestimating the dose? A radiation dose study utilizing the 2007 ICRP tissue weighting factors and a cardiac specific scan volume. Clin. Radiol.65(12), 1013–1017 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology248(1), 254–263 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber TC, Kantor B, McCollough CH. Radiation dose and safety in cardiac computed tomography. Cardiol. Clin.27(4), 665–677 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol. Clin. North Am.47(1), 27–40 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology231(2), 393–398 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow BJ, Abraham A, Wells GA et al. Diagnostic accuracy and impact of computed tomographic coronary angiography on utilization of invasive coronary angiography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging2(1), 16–23 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.48(9), 1896–1910 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.52(21), 1724–1732 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA298(3), 317–323 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch. Intern. Med.169(22), 2078–2086 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mark DB, Berman DS, Budoff MJ et al. ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT 2010 expert consensus document on coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.55(23), 2663–2699 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Circulation113(10), 1305–1310 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu L, Zhang Z. Coronary CT angiography with low radiation dose. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging26(Suppl. 1), 17–25 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Hausleiter J, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M et al. Image quality and radiation exposure with a low tube voltage protocol for coronary CT angiography results of the PROTECTION II trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging3(11), 1113–1123 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M et al. Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology237(1), 213–223 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliburton SS. Recent technologic advances in multi-detector row cardiac CT. Cardiol. Clin.27(4), 655–664 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Alibek S, Brand M, Suess C, Wuest W, Uder M, Greess H. Dose reduction in pediatric computed tomography with automated exposure control. Acad. Radiol.18(6), 690–693 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Park EA, Lee W, Kang JH, Yin YH, Chung JW, Park JH. The image quality and radiation dose of 100-kVp versus 120-kVp ECG-gated 16-slice CT coronary angiography. Korean J. Radiol.10(3), 235–243 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Takakuwa KM, Halpern EJ, Gingold EL, Levin DC, Shofer FS. Radiation dose in a ‘triple rule-out’ coronary CT angiography protocol of emergency department patients using 64-MDCT: the impact of ECG-based tube current modulation on age, sex, and body mass index. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.192(4), 866–872 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Pflederer T, Ho KT, Anger T et al. Assessment of regional left ventricular function by dual source computed tomography: interobserver variability and validation to laevocardiography. Eur. J. Radiol.72(1), 85–91 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Sun Z, Ng KH. Multislice CT angiography in cardiac imaging. Part III: radiation risk and dose reduction. Singapore Med. J.51(5), 374–380 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. Radiology248(2), 431–437 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Radiology246(3), 742–753 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gopal A, Mao SS, Karlsberg D et al. Radiation reduction with prospective ECG-triggering acquisition using 64-multidetector computed tomographic angiography. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging25(4), 405–416 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labounty TM, Leipsic J, Min JK et al. Effect of padding duration on radiation dose and image interpretation in prospectively ECG-triggered coronary CT angiography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.194(4), 933–937 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alkadhi H, Leschka S. Radiation dose of cardiac computed tomography – what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Eur. Radiol.21(3), 505–509 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L et al. Low-dose, 128-slice, dual-source CT coronary angiography: accuracy and radiation dose of the high-pitch and the step-and-shoot mode. Heart96(12), 933–938 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCollough CH, Primak AN, Saba O et al. Dose performance of a 64-channel dual-source CT scanner. Radiology243(3), 775–784 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Duarte R, Bettencourt N, Costa JC, Fernandez G. Coronary computed tomography angiography in a single cardiac cycle with a mean radiation dose of approximately 1 mSv: initial experience. Rev. Port. Cardiol.29(11), 1667–1676 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Iwanczyk JS, Nygard E, Meirav O et al. photon counting energy dispersive detector arrays for x-ray imaging. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.56(3), 535–542 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guaricci AI, Schuijf JD, Cademartiri F et al. Incremental value and safety of oral ivabradine for heart rate reduction in computed tomography coronary angiography. Int. J. Cardiol. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.10.035 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Abadi S, Mehrez H, Ursani A, Parker M, Paul N. Direct quantification of breast dose during coronary CT angiography and evaluation of dose reduction strategies. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.196(2), W152–W158 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Yilmaz MH, Yasar D, Albayram S et al. Coronary calcium scoring with MDCT: the radiation dose to the breast and the effectiveness of bismuth breast shield. Eur. J. Radiol.61(1), 139–143 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Yerramasu A, Venuraju S, Atwal S, Goodman D, Lipkin D, Lahiri A. Radiation dose of CT coronary angiography in clinical practice: objective evaluation of strategies for dose optimization. Eur. J. Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.040 (2011) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Khan A, Nasir K, Khosa F, Saghir A, Sarwar S, Clouse ME. Prospective gating with 320-MDCT angiography: effect of volume scan length on radiation dose. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.196(2), 407–411 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Zimmermann E, Dewey M. Whole-heart 320-row computed tomography: reduction of radiation dose via prior coronary calcium scanning. Rofo183(1), 54–59 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B et al. Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.195(3), 655–660 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Bedayat A, Rybicki FJ, Kumamaru K et al. Reduced exposure using asymmetric cone beam processing for wide area detector cardiac CT. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging doi:10.1007/s10554-011-9814-5 (2011) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• den Boer A, de Feyter PJ, Hummel WA, Keane D, Roelandt JR. Reduction of radiation exposure while maintaining high-quality fluoroscopic images during interventional cardiology using novel x-ray tube technology with extra beam filtering. Circulation89(6), 2710–2714 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Cowen AR, Davies AG, Sivananthan MU. The design and imaging characteristics of dynamic, solid-state, flat-panel x-ray image detectors for digital fluoroscopy and fluorography. Clin. Radiol.63(10), 1073–1085 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Schueler BA. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: general overview of fluoroscopic imaging. Radiographics20(4), 1115–1126 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickoloff EL. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: physics of flat-panel fluoroscopy systems: Survey of modern fluoroscopy imaging: flat-panel detectors versus image intensifiers and more. Radiographics31(2), 591–602 (2011).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Vano E et al. Correlation of patient and staff doses in interventional cardiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry117(1–3), 26–29 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Schueler BA. Operator shielding: how and why. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol.13(3), 167–171 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Kuon E, Dahm JB, Schmitt M, Glaser C, Gefeller O, Pfahlberg A. Short communication: time of day influences patient radiation exposure from percutaneous cardiac interventions. Br. J. Radiol.76(903), 189–191 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Kuon E, Dahm JB, Empen K, Robinson DM, Reuter G, Wucherer M. Identification of less-irradiating tube angulations in invasive cardiology. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.44(7), 1420–1428 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuon E, Empen K, Robinson DM, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O, Dahm JB. Efficiency of a minicourse in radiation reducing techniques: a pilot initiative to encourage less irradiating cardiological interventional techniques (ELICIT). Heart91(9), 1221–1222 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Justino H. The ALARA concept in pediatric cardiac catheterization: techniques and tactics for managing radiation dose. Pediatr. Radiol.36(Suppl. 2), 146–153 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Trianni A, Bernardi G, Padovani R. Are new technologies always reducing patient doses in cardiac procedures? Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry117(1–3), 97–101 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Mahesh M. Fluoroscopy: patient radiation exposure issues. Radiographics21(4), 1033–1045 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cusma JT, Bell MR, Wondrow MA, Taubel JP, Holmes DR Jr. Real-time measurement of radiation exposure to patients during diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous interventional procedures. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.33(2), 427–435 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, Persliden J. Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). II. Clinical evaluation. Eur. Radiol.12(11), 2813–2819 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Sadick V, Reed W, Collins L, Sadick N, Heard R, Robinson J. Impact of biplane versus single-plane imaging on radiation dose, contrast load and procedural time in coronary angioplasty. Br. J. Radiol.83(989), 379–394 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Kotre CJ, Reay J, Chapple CL. The influence of patient size on patient doses in cardiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry117(1–3), 222–224 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Neill J, Douglas H, Richardson G et al. Comparison of radiation dose and the effect of operator experience in femoral and radial arterial access for coronary procedures. Am. J. Cardiol.106(7), 936–940 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet377(9775), 1409–1420 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geijer H, Persliden J. Radiation exposure and patient experience during percutaneous coronary intervention using radial and femoral artery access. Eur. Radiol.14(9), 1674–1680 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neofotistou V, Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Schreiner-Karoussou A, Vano E. Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? A pilot study and review of the literature. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry117(1–3), 204–210 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M et al. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J. Nucl. Cardiol.17(5), 941–973 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilsizian V, Stephen LB, Beanlands RMD et al. PET myocardial perfusion and metabolism clinical imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol.16(4), 651 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur. Heart J.32(8), 1012–1024 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons RJ. Myocardial perfusion imaging. Heart83(3), 355–360 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beller GA, Heede RC. SPECT imaging for detecting coronary artery disease and determining prognosis by noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and myocardial viability. J. Cardiovasc. Transl. Res.4(4), 416–424 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H et al. Incremental prognostic value of adenosine stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography and impact on subsequent management in patients with or suspected of having myocardial ischemia. Am. J. Cardiol.80(4), 426–433 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter C, Ziadi MC, Etele J, Hill J, Beanlands RS, and deKemp R. New effective dose estimates for Rubidium-82 based on dynamic PET/CT imaging in humans. J. Nucl. Med.51, 282 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Esaias C et al. Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb. J. Nucl. Med.51(10), 1592–1599 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Vasken Dilsizian MD, Stephen LB, Beanlands RMD et al. PET myocardial perfusion and metabolism clinical imaging. J. Nucl. Cardiol.16(4), 651–651 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Pagnanelli RA, Basso DA. Myocardial perfusion imaging with 201Tl. J. Nucl. Med.Technol.38(1), 1–3 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Madsen MT. Recent advances in SPECT imaging. J. Nucl. Med.48(4), 661–673 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duvall WL, Croft LB, Godiwala T, Ginsberg E, George T, Henzlova MJ. Reduced isotope dose with rapid SPECT MPI imaging: initial experience with a CZT SPECT camera. J. Nucl. Cardiol.17(6), 1009–1014 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Gimelli A, Bottai M, Genovesi D, Giorgetti A, Di Martino F, Marzullo P. High diagnostic accuracy of low-dose gated-SPECT with solid-state ultrafast detectors: preliminary clinical results. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1918-6 (2011) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Duvall WL, Wijetunga MN, Klein TM et al. The prognosis of a normal stress-only Tc-99m myocardial perfusion imaging study. J. Nucl. Cardiol.17(3), 370–377 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Songy B, Lussato D, Guernou M, Queneau M, Geronazzo R. Comparison of myocardial perfusion imaging using thallium-201 between a new cadmium-zinc-telluride cardiac camera and a conventional SPECT camera. Clin. Nucl. Med.36(9), 776–780 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• DePuey EG, Bommireddipalli S, Clark J, Leykekhman A, Thompson LB, Friedman M. A comparison of the image quality of full-time myocardial perfusion SPECT vs wide beam reconstruction half-time and half-dose SPECT. J. Nucl. Cardiol.18(2), 273–280 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Borges-Neto S, Pagnanelli RA, Shaw LK et al. Clinical results of a novel wide beam reconstruction method for shortening scan time of Tc-99m cardiac SPECT perfusion studies. J. Nucl. Cardiol.14(4), 555–565 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali I, Ruddy TD, Almgrahi A, Anstett FG, Wells RG. Half-time SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging with attenuation correction. J. Nucl. Med.50(4), 554–562 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med.356(15), 1503–1516 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas GS, Maddahi J. The technetium shortage. J. Nucl. Cardiol.17(6), 993–998 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology254(2), 326–341 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duvall WL, Croft LB, Ginsberg ES et al. Reduced isotope dose and imaging time with a high-efficiency CZT SPECT camera. J. Nucl. Cardiol.18(5), 847–857 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar