Use of 100 kV versus 120 kV in cardiac dual source computed tomography: effect on radiation dose and image quality

  • Ron Blankstein
  • Michael A. Bolen
  • Rodrigo Pale
  • Meagan K. Murphy
  • Amar B. Shah
  • Hiram G. Bezerra
  • Ammar Sarwar
  • Ian S. Rogers
  • Udo Hoffmann
  • Suhny Abbara
  • Ricardo C. Cury
  • Thomas J. Brady
Article

Abstract

To evaluate the effective radiation dose and image quality resulting from use of 100 vs. 120 kV among patients referred for cardiac dual source CT exam (DSCT). Prospective data was collected on 294 consecutive patients referred for DSCT. For each scan, a physician specializing in cardiac CT chose all parameters including tube current and voltage, axial versus helical acquisition, and use of tube current modulation. Lower tube voltage was selected for thinner patients or when lower radiation was desired for younger patients, particularly females. For each study, image quality (IQ) was rated on a subjective IQ score and contrast (CNR) and signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios were calculated. Tube voltage of 100 kV was used for 77 (26%) exams while 120 kV was used for 217 (74%) exams. Use of 100 kV was more common in thinner patients (weight 166lbs vs. 199lbs, P < .001). The effective radiation dose for the 100 and 120 kV scans was 8.5 and 15.4 mSv respectively. Among scans utilizing 100 and 120 kV, there was no difference in exam indication, use of beta blockers, heart rate, scan length and use of radiation saving techniques such as prospective ECG triggering and tube current modulation. The IQ score was significantly higher for 100 kV scans. While 100 kV scans were found to have higher image noise then those utilizing 120 kV, the contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise were significantly higher (SNR: 9.4 vs. 8.3, P = .02; CNR: 6.9 vs. 6.0, P = .02). In selected non-obese patients, use of low kV results in a substantial reduction of radiation dose and may result in improved image quality. These results suggest that low kV should be used more frequently in non-obese patients.

Keywords

Cardiac CT Radiation dose Tube voltage 

References

  1. 1.
    Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, Gerber TC, Gersh B, Hillis LD, Hundley WG, Manning WJ, Printz BF, Stuber M, Woodard PK (2008) 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. CirculationGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S (2007) Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 298(3):317–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Huber E, Zankl M, Martinoff S, Kastrati A, Schomig A (2006) Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 113(10):1305–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feuchtner GM, Jodocy D, Klauser A, Haberfellner B, Aglan I, Spoeck A, Hiehs S, Soegner P, Jaschke W (2009) Radiation dose reduction by using 100-kv tube voltage in cardiac 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study. Eur J Radiol. doi:S0720-048X(09)00417-3[pii]10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.07.012
  5. 5.
    Heyer CM, Mohr PS, Lemburg SP, Peters SA, Nicolas V (2007) Image quality and radiation exposure at pulmonary ct angiography with 100- or 120-kvp protocol: prospective randomized study. Radiology 245(2):577–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, Scheffel H, Stinn B, Marincek B, Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S (2008) Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source ct: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 18(9):1809–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paul JF, Abada HT (2007) Strategies for reduction of radiation dose in cardiac multislice ct. Eur Radiol 17(8):2028–2037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Einstein AJ (2009) Radiation protection of patients undergoing cardiac computed tomographic angiography. JAMA 301(5):545–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, Hadamitzky M, Krebs M, Gerber TC, McCollough C, Martinoff S, Kastrati A, Schomig A, Achenbach S (2009) Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac ct angiography. JAMA 301(5):500–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, Baumuller S, Plass A, Genoni M, Marincek B, Leschka S (2008) Radiation dose of cardiac dual-source ct: the effect of tailoring the protocol to patient-specific parameters. Eur J Radiol 68(3):385–391. doi:S0720-048X(08)00495-6[pii]10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.08.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ron Blankstein
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael A. Bolen
    • 3
  • Rodrigo Pale
    • 1
  • Meagan K. Murphy
    • 1
  • Amar B. Shah
    • 1
  • Hiram G. Bezerra
    • 1
  • Ammar Sarwar
    • 1
  • Ian S. Rogers
    • 1
  • Udo Hoffmann
    • 1
  • Suhny Abbara
    • 1
  • Ricardo C. Cury
    • 1
    • 4
  • Thomas J. Brady
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Department of Radiology and Division of CardiologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Non-invasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Department of Medicine (Cardiovascular Division) and RadiologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Cardiovascular SectionImaging Institute, Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Baptist Cardiac and Vascular InstituteMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations