B. Goins, A. Henderson, Charles K. Lin, Anthony Charmforoush, Takor B. Arrey-Mbi, R. Prentice, J. Slim, Rosco S Gore, R. Cury, Ahmad M. Slim, Dustin M. Thomas
{"title":"急性胸痛患者医学影像学所致总有效辐射剂量:双源冠状动脉CT血管造影与常规护理的单中心比较研究","authors":"B. Goins, A. Henderson, Charles K. Lin, Anthony Charmforoush, Takor B. Arrey-Mbi, R. Prentice, J. Slim, Rosco S Gore, R. Cury, Ahmad M. Slim, Dustin M. Thomas","doi":"10.5812/acvi.34647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can safely disposition low to intermediate risk chest pain (CP); however, there is conflicting data with respect to cumulative radiation exposure when compared with usual care over short follow-up intervals. Objectives: We report the effective radiation dose from index and downstream testing in low to intermediate risk symptomatic patients evaluated for chest pain in the ED with either CCTA or usual care to define various sources of patient radiation dose and quantify effective dose over a year and a half of follow-up. Patients and Methods: We evaluated radiation exposure from initial and downstream testing in a prospectively collected, matched cohort evaluated for CP in the emergency department (ED) with either CCTA compared with usual care over a median follow-up of 19.6 months. Effective radiation dose was calculated using published conversion factors. Results: Prospective, ECG-triggered acquisition using a 128-slice dual-source multidetector computed tomography (DSCT) scanner was performed in 92.9% of scans with a median effective dose from CCTA of 6.8 mSv (IQR 5.2, 9.1 mSv). CCTA cohort patients were more likely to undergo cardiac testing with exposure to radiation (P < 0.001); however, the median effective dose in patients exposed to radiation from cardiac testing was significantly lower in the CCTA cohort (7.1 mSv vs. 11.8 mSv, P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the CCTA cohort had additional non-cardiac thoracic imaging radiation exposure (40.8%) compared with usual care (92.8%). Total radiation exposure from any source was similar between the CCTA and usual care groups (100% vs 98.4%, P = 0.087), as was median total effective radiation dose (P = 0.105). Upfront CCTA was not associated with higher rates of incidental non-cardiac findings. Conclusions: Initial evaluation of acute chest pain in the ED with CCTA was not associated with an increase in total radiation exposure over a follow-up period of 19 months. CCTA offers a more comprehensive evaluation of multiple thoracic organ systems leading to reduced radiation exposure from non-cardiac thoracic testing and no increase in incidental imaging findings. This may represent an added benefit in this population of patients presenting acutely.","PeriodicalId":429543,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Cardiovascular Imaging","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total effective radiation dose attributable to medical imaging in patients with acute chest pain: A single-center comparison study between dual-source coronary CT angiography and usual care\",\"authors\":\"B. Goins, A. Henderson, Charles K. Lin, Anthony Charmforoush, Takor B. Arrey-Mbi, R. Prentice, J. Slim, Rosco S Gore, R. Cury, Ahmad M. Slim, Dustin M. Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/acvi.34647\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can safely disposition low to intermediate risk chest pain (CP); however, there is conflicting data with respect to cumulative radiation exposure when compared with usual care over short follow-up intervals. Objectives: We report the effective radiation dose from index and downstream testing in low to intermediate risk symptomatic patients evaluated for chest pain in the ED with either CCTA or usual care to define various sources of patient radiation dose and quantify effective dose over a year and a half of follow-up. Patients and Methods: We evaluated radiation exposure from initial and downstream testing in a prospectively collected, matched cohort evaluated for CP in the emergency department (ED) with either CCTA compared with usual care over a median follow-up of 19.6 months. Effective radiation dose was calculated using published conversion factors. Results: Prospective, ECG-triggered acquisition using a 128-slice dual-source multidetector computed tomography (DSCT) scanner was performed in 92.9% of scans with a median effective dose from CCTA of 6.8 mSv (IQR 5.2, 9.1 mSv). CCTA cohort patients were more likely to undergo cardiac testing with exposure to radiation (P < 0.001); however, the median effective dose in patients exposed to radiation from cardiac testing was significantly lower in the CCTA cohort (7.1 mSv vs. 11.8 mSv, P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the CCTA cohort had additional non-cardiac thoracic imaging radiation exposure (40.8%) compared with usual care (92.8%). Total radiation exposure from any source was similar between the CCTA and usual care groups (100% vs 98.4%, P = 0.087), as was median total effective radiation dose (P = 0.105). Upfront CCTA was not associated with higher rates of incidental non-cardiac findings. Conclusions: Initial evaluation of acute chest pain in the ED with CCTA was not associated with an increase in total radiation exposure over a follow-up period of 19 months. CCTA offers a more comprehensive evaluation of multiple thoracic organ systems leading to reduced radiation exposure from non-cardiac thoracic testing and no increase in incidental imaging findings. This may represent an added benefit in this population of patients presenting acutely.\",\"PeriodicalId\":429543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Cardiovascular Imaging\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Cardiovascular Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/acvi.34647\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Cardiovascular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/acvi.34647","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导语:冠状动脉CT血管造影(CCTA)可以安全地诊断低至中危胸痛(CP);然而,与短时间随访期间的常规护理相比,关于累积辐射暴露的数据存在矛盾。目的:我们报告了在CCTA或常规护理中评估ED胸痛的低至中等风险症状患者的指数和下游测试的有效辐射剂量,以确定患者辐射剂量的各种来源,并在一年半的随访中量化有效剂量。患者和方法:我们在一个前瞻性收集的匹配队列中评估了急诊(ED) CP的初始和下游测试的辐射暴露,CCTA与常规护理相比,中位随访时间为19.6个月。有效辐射剂量用已公布的换算系数计算。结果:使用128层双源多探测器计算机断层扫描(DSCT)进行前瞻性心电图触发采集的扫描率为92.9%,CCTA的中位有效剂量为6.8 mSv (IQR为5.2,9.1 mSv)。CCTA队列患者更有可能接受辐射暴露的心脏检查(P < 0.001);然而,在CCTA队列中,心脏试验辐射暴露患者的中位有效剂量显著降低(7.1毫西弗vs 11.8毫西弗,P < 0.001)。与常规护理(92.8%)相比,CCTA队列中有额外非心脏胸部成像辐射暴露的患者较少(40.8%)。在CCTA组和常规护理组之间,任何来源的总辐射暴露相似(100% vs 98.4%, P = 0.087),中位总有效辐射剂量相似(P = 0.105)。前期CCTA与较高的非心脏偶发发生率无关。结论:在19个月的随访期间,CCTA对急诊科急性胸痛的初步评估与总辐射暴露的增加无关。CCTA对多个胸部器官系统提供了更全面的评估,从而减少了非心脏胸部检查的辐射暴露,并且不会增加附带成像结果。这可能对急性发病的患者群体有额外的好处。
Total effective radiation dose attributable to medical imaging in patients with acute chest pain: A single-center comparison study between dual-source coronary CT angiography and usual care
Introduction: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can safely disposition low to intermediate risk chest pain (CP); however, there is conflicting data with respect to cumulative radiation exposure when compared with usual care over short follow-up intervals. Objectives: We report the effective radiation dose from index and downstream testing in low to intermediate risk symptomatic patients evaluated for chest pain in the ED with either CCTA or usual care to define various sources of patient radiation dose and quantify effective dose over a year and a half of follow-up. Patients and Methods: We evaluated radiation exposure from initial and downstream testing in a prospectively collected, matched cohort evaluated for CP in the emergency department (ED) with either CCTA compared with usual care over a median follow-up of 19.6 months. Effective radiation dose was calculated using published conversion factors. Results: Prospective, ECG-triggered acquisition using a 128-slice dual-source multidetector computed tomography (DSCT) scanner was performed in 92.9% of scans with a median effective dose from CCTA of 6.8 mSv (IQR 5.2, 9.1 mSv). CCTA cohort patients were more likely to undergo cardiac testing with exposure to radiation (P < 0.001); however, the median effective dose in patients exposed to radiation from cardiac testing was significantly lower in the CCTA cohort (7.1 mSv vs. 11.8 mSv, P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the CCTA cohort had additional non-cardiac thoracic imaging radiation exposure (40.8%) compared with usual care (92.8%). Total radiation exposure from any source was similar between the CCTA and usual care groups (100% vs 98.4%, P = 0.087), as was median total effective radiation dose (P = 0.105). Upfront CCTA was not associated with higher rates of incidental non-cardiac findings. Conclusions: Initial evaluation of acute chest pain in the ED with CCTA was not associated with an increase in total radiation exposure over a follow-up period of 19 months. CCTA offers a more comprehensive evaluation of multiple thoracic organ systems leading to reduced radiation exposure from non-cardiac thoracic testing and no increase in incidental imaging findings. This may represent an added benefit in this population of patients presenting acutely.