Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 244–250

Reduction of Radiation Doses in Cardiac Imaging, Part II: New Advances and Techniques in Nuclear Perfusion Imaging and Cardiac CT

Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Noninvasive cardiac imaging has become a critical pathway for diagnosis and risk assessment in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease. Low-level ionizing radiation is used in most of these procedures like radionuclide myocardial imaging and cardiac CT scanning. There is lack of any direct data which indicates the occurrence of any radiation-related adverse events with these diagnostic tests. However, recent concern has been raised due to the cumulative dose of radiation that patients receive during these procedures. Efforts are underway to help reduce the radiation exposure while preserving image quality for accurate interpretation and avoidance of repeat testing. This review will focus on the various advancements and methods to reduce the radiation dose in patients undergoing nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging and cardiac CT scanning.

Keywords

Radiation dose Nuclear imaging Cardiac CT Reduction 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. WashingtonC: National Academies; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(9):849–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cerqueira MD, Allman KC, Ficaro EP, Hansen CL, Nichols KJ, Thompson RC, et al. Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(4):709–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, Dixon RL, Ferrari VA, Gomes AS, 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. Circulation. 2009;119(7):1056–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA, et al. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Circulation. 2009;119(22):e561–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson RC, Cullom SJ. Issues regarding radiation dosage of cardiac nuclear and radiography procedures. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13(1):19–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ. Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging: similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology.55(3):221–230Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Duvall WL, Wijetunga MN, Klein TM, Razzouk L, Godbold J, Croft LB, Henzlova MJ. The prognosis of a normal stress-only Tc-99 m myocardial perfusion imaging study. J Nucl Cardiol.17(3):370–377. In a departure from the usual rest-stress technique, attenuation-corrected stress only imaging was used, and no resting study was performed if the stress was deemed normal or near-normal. In over 1600 patients undergoing this protocol, the prognosis was not different from that of patients undergoing rest-stress imaging, ie, less than 1% annualized cardiac event rate (annualized from 40 months of data). Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Venero CV, Heller GV, Bateman TM, McGhie AI, Ahlberg AW, Katten D, et al. A multicenter evaluation of a new post-processing method with depth-dependent collimator resolution applied to full-time and half-time acquisitions without and with simultaneously acquired attenuation correction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16(5):714–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DePuey EG, Bommireddipalli S, Clark J, Thompson L, Srour Y. Wide beam reconstruction “quarter-time” gated myocardial perfusion SPECT functional imaging: a comparison to “full-time” ordered subset expectation maximum. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16(5):736–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharir T, Ben-Haim S, Merzon K, Prochorov V, Dickman D, Ben-Haim S, et al. High-speed myocardial perfusion imaging initial clinical comparison with conventional dual detector anger camera imaging. JACC. 2008;1(2):156–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, Mark D, Min J, O'Gara P, et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(22):1864–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, Hadamitzky M, Krebs M, Gerber TC, McCollough C, Martinoff S, Kastrati A, Schomig A, Achenbach S. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. Jama. 2009;301(5):500–507. This large-scale, multicenter study showed that various strategies for radiation dose reduction are effective widely without deterioration in image quality; however, these methods are used infrequently. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Budoff MJ, Gopal A, Gopalakrishnan D. Cardiac computed tomography: diagnostic utility and integration in clinical practice. Clin Cardiol. 2006;29(9 Suppl 1):I4–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feuerlein S, Roessl E, Proksa R, Martens G, Klass O, Jeltsch M, et al. Multienergy photon-counting K-edge imaging: potential for improved luminal depiction in vascular imaging. Radiology. 2008;249(3):1010–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Huber E, Zankl M, Martinoff S, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 2006;113(10):1305–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gopal A, Mao SS, Karlsberg D, Young E, Waggoner J, Ahmadi N, et al. Radiation reduction with prospective ECG-triggering acquisition using 64-multidetector Computed Tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(4):405–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, Scheffel H, Stinn B, Marincek B, Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. European radiology. 2008;18(9):1809–1817. This article reported a significant decrease in radiation dose with low tube voltage protocols of 100 kv while maintaining the diagnostic image quality. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayo JR, Leipsic JA. Radiation dose in cardiac CT. AJR. 2009;192(3):646–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hermann F, Martinoff S, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, Jiang C, Hendrich E, et al. Reduction of radiation dose estimates in cardiac 64-slice CT angiography in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Investig Radiol. 2008;43(4):253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, Min JK, Mancini GB, Lin FY, et al. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. AJR. 2010;195(3):649–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, Min JK, Mancini GB, Lin FY, et al. Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. AJR. 2010;195(3):655–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gopal A, Budoff MJ. A new method to reduce radiation exposure during multi-row detector cardiac computed tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiol. 2009;132(3):435–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, Mitsumori LM, Lockhart DW, Dubinsky TJ, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology. 2008;248(2):431–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hsieh J, Londt J, Vass M, Li J, Tang X, Okerlund D. Step-and-shoot data acquisition and reconstruction for cardiac x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 2006;33(11):4236–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    •• Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, Curry CA, Lane JL, Jennings RS, McCulloch CC, Hsieh J, Londt JH. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology. 2008;246(3):742–753. This study was one of the first to report that prospective EKG-triggering offered improved image quality and was associated with a significant reduction in the radiation dose compared with retrospective EKG-gated coronary CT. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, Mitsumori LM, Strote JN, Warren BH, et al. Whole-chest 64-MDCT of emergency department patients with nonspecific chest pain: radiation dose and coronary artery image quality with prospective ECG triggering versus retrospective ECG gating. AJR. 2009;192(6):1662–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blankstein R, Shah A, Pale R, Abbara S, Bezerra H, Bolen M, et al. Radiation dose and image quality of prospective triggering with dual-source cardiac computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(8):1168–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klass O, Jeltsch M, Feuerlein S, Brunner H, Nagel HD, Walker MJ, et al. Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: preliminary experiences with a novel low-dose technique. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(4):829–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, Baumuller S, Plass A, et al. Radiation dose of cardiac dual-source CT: the effect of tailoring the protocol to patient-specific parameters. Eur J Radiol. 2008;68(3):385–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hirai N, Horiguchi J, Fujioka C, Kiguchi M, Yamamoto H, Matsuura N, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology. 2008;248(2):424–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Husmann L, Herzog BA, Gaemperli O, Tatsugami F, Burkhard N, Valenta I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography and evaluation of stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography hybrid imaging: comparison of prospective electrocardiogram-triggering vs. retrospective gating. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(5):600–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Budoff MJ. Maximizing dose reductions with cardiac CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25:279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Adda O, Treyer V, Wyss CA, et al. Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(2):191–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Henzler T, Hanley M, Arnoldi E, Bastarrika G, Schoepf UJ, Becker HC. Practical strategies for low radiation dose cardiac computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging. 2010;25(3):213–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harper University HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations