Comparing the Absorbed Doses by Skin, Thyroid, and Eyes in CT Coronary Angiography and Conventional Angiography

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 3 Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: One of the diagnostic methods for cardiovascular diseases, particularly coronary artery abnormalities, is imaging. Invention of computed tomography (CT) devices with a multi-detector row in recent years has created new capabilities in the field of imaging, especially cardiovascular imaging. CT coronary angiography is a new imaging technique which can be implemented with these devices. Despite many advantages, this method imposes high absorbed dose (total ionizing dose, TID) to patients. Therefore, assessing the imposed dose rate to patients is very necessary. We assessed the doses absorbed by different organs including skin, thyroid, and eyes in CT coronary angiography and compared them with the values in conventional angiography.Methods: In this study, doses absorbed by skin, thyroid, and eyes of 67 patients were assessed. The subjects referred to Alzahra and Sina Hospitals (Isfahan, Iran) for CT coronary angiography. Doses were calculated through practical measurements of point doses using thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLD). In order for dosimetry of each of the mentioned organs, we used a pair of TLD GR-200. The average value obtained from each pair of TLD was considered as the dose of the organ. Dosimeters were calibrated using a Co-60 source. After the imaging, the dose values were separately calculated for each organ. The values were then compared with corresponding values in conventional angiography. The used CT devices were a 64-row detector CT (Lightspeed VCT, U.S.) in Alzahra Hospital and a 64-cross-sectional device (Phillips) in Sina Hospital.Findings: The mean doses absorbed by skin, thyroid, and eyes in CT coronary angiography were 8.32 ± 1.73 cGy, 2.06 ± 1.68 cGy, and 0.3 ± 0.1.6 cGy, respectively. The corresponding values in conventional angiography were 6.64 ± 9.3 cGy, 0.15 ± 0.17 cGy, and 0.03 ± 0.03 cGy. There was a significant difference between the 2 imaging methods in doses absorbed by the organs (P < 0.001). Range of doses absorbed by the skin in CT and conventional coronary angiography were 5.15-12.22 cGy and 0.07-39.00 cGy, respectively.Conclusion: Since the skin is directly irradiated, it absorbed higher doses compared to the other 2 organs in both methods. There were evident and considerable changes in skin dose range in both methods and the range of skin dose in conventional angiography was much more than CT coronary angiography. Absorbed dose of organs in CT angiography was much higher than conventional angiography. Scanning parameters can significantly alter the absorbed dose rate. Therefore, technicians should acquire adequate trainings in this regard and utilize them practically.

Keywords

References

  1. American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2003 Update. Dallas, TX: AHA. 2012.
  2. Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S, Cook J, Jia X, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess 2008; 12(17): iii-143.
  3. Akbar Zadeh F, Hejazi E, Kooshavar H, Pezeshkian M. Prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and cardiac risk factors in northwestern Tabriz. Medical Journal of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences & Health Services 2003;
  4. : 5-11.
  5. Bahonar A, Shahnam M, Asadi-Lari M, Bashtam M, Gharipoor M, Taghdisi MH, et al. Risk factors of cardiovascular diseases among workers in Isfahan. Iran Occupational Health Journal 2010; 7(1): 4-10.
  6. Vazirian Sh, Mohammad Nejad M, Moghadasi AR. Epidemiological evaluation of poisoning in children hospitalized at Razi & Shahid Fahmideh, Kermanshah, 2002-03. Behbood, The Scientific Quarterly 2004; 8(21): 37-46.
  7. de Bono D. Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from 34,041 patients in the United Kingdom confidential enquiry into cardiac catheter complications. The Joint Audit Committee of the British Cardiac Society and Royal College of Physicians of London. Br Heart J 1993; 70(3): 297-300.
  8. Renaud L. A 5-y follow-up of the radiation exposure to in-room personnel during cardiac catheterization. Health Phys 1992; 62(1): 10-5.
  9. McParland BJ, Nosil J, Burry B. A survey of the radiation exposures received by the staff at two cardiac catheterization laboratories. Br J Radiol 1990; 63(755): 885-8.
  10. Le Heron JC, Mitchell AW. Scattered radiation doses during cardiac studies using a U-arm type fluoroscopy system. Australas Radiol 1985; 29(4): 335-40.
  11. Koenig TR, Wolff D, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 1, characteristics of radiation injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177(1): 3-20.
  12. Ohnesorge B, Flohr T, Becker C, Kopp AF, Schoepf UJ, Baum U, et al. Cardiac imaging by means of electrocardiographically gated multisection spiral CT: initial experience. Radiology 2000; 217(2): 564-71.
  13. Becker CR, Kleffel T, Crispin A, Knez A, Young J, Schoepf UJ, et al. Coronary artery calcium measurement: agreement of multirow detector and electron beam CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176(5): 1295-8.
  14. Kopp AF, Ohnesorge B, Becker C, Schroder S, Heuschmid M, Kuttner A, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of coronary calcium measurements with multi-detector row versus electron-beam CT. Radiology 2002; 225(1): 113-9.
  15. Achenbach S, Ulzheimer S, Baum U, Kachelriess M, Ropers D, Giesler T, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by retrospectively ECG-gated multislice spiral CT. Circulation 2000; 102(23): 2823-8.
  16. Kopp AF, Schroeder S, Kuettner A, Baumbach A, Georg C, Kuzo R, et al. Non-invasive coronary angiography with high resolution multidetector-row computed tomography. Results in 102 patients. Eur Heart J 2002; 23(21): 1714-25.
  17. Mahesh M. Cardiac Imaging – Technical Advances in MDCT Compared with Conventional X-ray Angiography. Business Briefing: US Cardiology 2006; 115-8.
  18. Flohr TG, Schaller S, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H, Ohnesorge BM, Schoepf UJ. Multi-detector row CT systems and image-reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2005; 235(3): 756-73.
  19. GerberB, Rosen BD, Mahesh M, Araujo LI, St John Sutton M, ima JAC. Physical principles of cardiovascular imaging. In: St John Sutton M, Rutherford J, editors. Clinical cardiovascular imaging: a companion to Braunwald's heart disease.Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier-Saunders; 2004. p. 1-77.
  20. Klingenbeck-Regn K, Flohr T, Ohnesorge B, Regn J, Schaller S. Strategies for cardiac CT imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2002; 18(2): 143-51.
  21. Klingenbeck-Regn K, Schaller S, Flohr T, Ohnesorge B, Kopp AF, Baum U. Subsecond multi-slice computed tomography: basics and applications. Eur J Radiol 1999; 31(2): 110-24.
  22. Nikolaou K, Flohr T, Knez A, Rist C, Wintersperger B, Johnson T, et al. Advances in cardiac CT imaging: 64-slice scanner. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2004; 20(6): 535-40.
  23. Gerber TC, Kuzo RS, Morin RL. Techniques and parameters for estimating radiation exposure and dose in cardiac computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2005; 21(1): 165-76.
  24. Wilde P, Pitcher EM, Slack K. Radiation hazards for the patient in cardiological procedures. Heart 2001; 85(2): 127-30.
  25. Neofotistou V, Vano E, Padovani R, Kotre J, Dowling A, Toivonen M, et al. Preliminary reference levels in interventional cardiology. Eur Radiol 2003; 13(10): 2259-63.
  26. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007; 116(11): 1290-305.
  27. Power MRCM. Solar 2A operators manual. Ne technology limited 1995. Berkshire England; 1995. p. 89.
  28. Tavakoli MB, Monsef S, Hashemi M, Emami H. Assessment of patients skin dose undergoing coronary angiography and Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA). Iran J Radiat Res 2010; 8(3): 155-60.
  29. Curry TS, Curry JE, Murry RE. Christensen's Physics of Diagnostic Radiology. 4th ed. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1990.
  30. Sun Z, Ng KH. Multislice CT angiography in cardiac imaging. Part III: radiation risk and dose reduction. Singapore Med J 2010; 51(5): 374-80.
  31. McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 2002; 22(6): 1541-53.
  32. Mahesh M, Cody DD. Physics of cardiac imaging with multiple-row detector CT. Radiographics 2007; 27(5): 1495-509.
  33. Achenbach S, Giesler T, Ropers D, Ulzheimer S, Derlien H, Schulte C, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses by contrast-enhanced, retrospectively electrocardiographically-gated, multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 2001; 103(21): 2535-8.
  34. Achenbach S, Ulzheimer S, Baum U, Kachelriess M, Ropers D, Giesler T, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by retrospectively ECG-gated multislice spiral CT. Circulation 2000; 102(23): 2823-8.
  35. Schroeder S, Kopp AF, Baumbach A, Kuettner A, Georg C, Ohnesorge B, et al. Non-invasive characterisation of coronary lesion morphology by multi-slice computed tomography: a promising new technology for risk stratification of patients with coronary artery disease. Heart 2001; 85(5): 576-8.
  36. Schroeder S, Kopp AF, Baumbach A, Kuettner A, Herdeg C, Rosenberger A, et al. Noninvasive detection of coronary lesions by multislice computed tomography: results of the New Age pilot trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001; 53(3): 352-8.
  37. Hollingsworth CL, Yoshizumi TT, Frush DP, Chan FP, Toncheva G, Nguyen G, et al. Pediatric cardiac-gated CT angiography: assessment of radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189(1): 12-8.
  38. Kim KP, Einstein AJ, Berrington de GA. Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169(13): 1188-94.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 29, Issue 159 - Serial Number 159
September and October 2011
Pages 1703-1712

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 March 2012
  • Revise Date: 01 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics