Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,000

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Estimated Radiation Dose Associated With Cardiac CT Angiography

Hausleiter, Jörg·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Cardiac computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA) has emerged as a useful diagnostic imaging modality in the assessment of coronary artery disease. However, the potential risks due to exposure to ionizing radiation associated with CCTA have raised concerns. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the radiation dose of CCTA in routine clinical practice as well as the association of currently available strategies with dose reduction and to identify the independent factors contributing to radiation dose. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A cross-sectional, international, multicenter, observational study (50 study sites: 21 university hospitals and 29 community hospitals) of estimated radiation dose in 1965 patients undergoing CCTA between February and December 2007. Linear regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors associated with dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Dose-length product (DLP) of CCTA. RESULTS: The median DLP of 1965 CCTA examinations performed at 50 study sites was 885 mGy x cm (interquartile range, 568-1259 mGy x cm), which corresponds to an estimated radiation dose of 12 mSv (or 1.2 x the dose of an abdominal CT study or 600 chest x-rays). A high variability in DLP was observed between study sites (range of median DLPs per site, 331-2146 mGy x cm). Independent factors associated with radiation dose were patient weight (relative effect on DLP, 5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4%-6%), absence of stable sinus rhythm (10%; 95% CI, 2%-19%), scan length (5%; 95% CI, 4%-6%), electrocardiographically controlled tube current modulation (-25%; 95% CI, -23% to -28%; applied in 73% of patients), 100-kV tube voltage (-46%; 95% CI, -42% to -51%; applied in 5% of patients), sequential scanning (-78%; 95% CI, -77% to -79%; applied in 6% of patients), experience in cardiac CT (-1%; 95% CI, -1% to 0%), number of CCTAs per month (0%; 95% CI, 0%-1%), and type of 64-slice CT system (for highest vs lowest dose system, 97%; 95% CI, 88%-106%). Algorithms for dose reduction were not associated with deteriorated diagnostic image quality in this observational study. CONCLUSIONS: Median doses of CCTA differ significantly between study sites and CT systems. Effective strategies to reduce radiation dose are available but some strategies are not frequently used. The comparable diagnostic image quality may support an increased use of dose-saving strategies in adequately selected patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.54

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Hausleiter, J.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-02-04
Volume
301
Issue
5
Pages
500
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2157498742
Cited by
1,000
References
0
FWCI
105.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimated Radiation Dose Associated With Cardiac CT Angiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.54
The paper
Hausleiter, J. (2009). Estimated Radiation Dose Associated With Cardiac CT Angiography. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.54

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.