European Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 2116–2125

Quantification of radiation dose savings in cardiac computed tomography using prospectively triggered mode and ECG pulsing: a phantom study

  • Lukas Lehmkuhl
  • Dieter Gosch
  • H. D. Nagel
  • Patrick Stumpp
  • Thomas Kahn
  • Matthias Gutberlet
Computed Tomography

DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1767-x

Cite this article as:
Lehmkuhl, L., Gosch, D., Nagel, H.D. et al. Eur Radiol (2010) 20: 2116. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1767-x

Abstract

Objective

To quantify radiation dose reduction in cardiac computed tomography (CT) using a prospectively triggered mode compared with a retrospective ECG-gated helical mode.

Methods

Absorbed organ doses in cardiac 64-row multidetector CT were quantified using an anthropomorphic male Alderson phantom with 74 thermoluminescence dosimeters. Three different imaging protocols were applied: retrospective ECG-gating, retrospective ECG-gating with additional ECG-pulsing, and a prospectively triggered mode. The measured organ doses were compared with dose estimation by a mathematical phantom.

Results

Compared with the retrospective ECG-gating mode, the mean relative organ doses were reduced by 44% using ECG pulsing and by 76% using the prospectively triggered mode. The range of dose savings varied from 34% to 49% using ECG pulsing and from 65% to 87% using the prospectively triggered mode. The effective dose was 16.5 mSv using retrospective gating, 9.2 mSv using retrospective gating with ECG pulsing and 4.0 mSv using the prospectively triggered mode.

Conclusions

Our measurements confirm the high dose-saving potential of the prospectively triggered technique in cardiac CT. The reduction in the organ doses measured corresponds to estimates determined by the mathematical phantom. The effective dose calculated by the mathematical phantom was, in some cases, significantly lower than that calculated using the anthropomorphic phantom.

Keywords

Computed tomography Prospective gating Radiation dose Organ dose Phantom 

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Lehmkuhl
    • 1
    • 4
  • Dieter Gosch
    • 2
  • H. D. Nagel
    • 3
  • Patrick Stumpp
    • 2
  • Thomas Kahn
    • 2
  • Matthias Gutberlet
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity of Leipzig—Heart CenterLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Philips GmbHUnternehmensbereich HealthcareLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Diagnostische und Interventionelle RadiologieUniversität Leipzig—HerzzentrumLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations