Evidence Hub

Radiation dose estimation for prospective and retrospective ECG-gated cardiac CT angiography in infants and small children using a 320-MDCT volume scanner

Podberesky DJ, Angel E, Yoshizumi TT, Toncheva G, Salisbury SR, Alsip C, Barelli A, Egelhoff JC et al.

AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2012

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine patient dose estimates for clinical pediatric cardiac-gated CT angiography (CTA) protocols on a 320-MDCT volume scanner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Organ doses were measured using 20 metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters. Radiation dose was estimated for volumetrically acquired clinical pediatric prospectively and retrospectively ECG-gated cardiac CTA protocols in 5-year-old and 1-year-old anthropomorphic phantoms on a 320-MDCT scanner. Simulated heart rates of 60 beats/min (5-year-old phantom) and 120 beats/min (1- and 5-year-old phantoms) were used. Effective doses (EDs) were calculated using average measured organ doses and International Commission on Radiological Protection 103 tissue-weighting factors. Dose-length product (DLP) was recorded for each examination and was used to develop dose conversion factors for pediatric cardiac examinations acquired with volume scan mode. DLP was also used to estimate ED according to recently published dose conversion factors for pediatric helical chest examinations. Repeated measures and paired Student t test analyses were performed.

RESULTS: For the 5-year-old phantom, at 60 beats/min, EDs ranged from 1.2 mSv for a prospectively gated examination to 4.5 mSv for a retrospectively gated examination. For the 5-year-old phantom, at 120 beats/min, EDs ranged from 3.0 mSv for a prospectively gated examination to 4.9 mSv for a retrospectively gated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free