The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates
Open accessAbstract
Background— Multislice computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a promising technology for imaging patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Compared with 16-slice CTA, the improved spatial and temporal resolution of 64-slice CTA (0.6- versus 1.0-mm slice thickness and 330- versus 420-ms gantry rotation time) is associated with an increase in radiation dose. The objective of this retrospective investigation was to compare the estimated dose received during 16- and 64-slice CTA in daily practice and to investigate the impact of different scan protocols on dose and image quality. Methods and Results— Radiation dose was estimated for 1035 patients undergoing coronary CTA. Scanning algorithms with and without an ECG-dependent dose modulation and with a reduced tube voltage were investigated on dose estimates and image quality. In the entire patient cohort, radiation dose estimates were 6.4±1.9 and 11.0±4.1 mSv for 16- and 64-slice CTA, respectively ( P <0.01). The reduction in radiation dose estimates ranged between 37% and 40% and between 53% and 64% with the use of ECG-dependent dose modulation and with the combined use of the dose modulation and a reduced tube voltage, respectively. The reduction in dose estimates was not associated with a reduction in diagnostic image quality as assessed by the signal-to-noise ratio and by the frequency of coronary segments with diagnostic image quality. Conclusions— The increase in spatial and temporal resolution with 64-slice CTA is associated with an increased radiation dose for coronary CTA. Dose-saving algorithms are very effective in reducing radiation exposure and should be used whenever possible.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Strategies for Reducing Radiation Dose in CT
McCollough, C. H., Primak, A. N., Braun, N., Kofler, J., Yu, L., & Christner, J. (2009) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006 · Cited by 842
Abbara, S., Arbab-Zadeh, A., Callister, T. Q., Desai, M. Y., Mamuya, W., Thomson, L., & Weigold, W. G. (2009) · Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography · doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2009.03.004 · Cited by 580
Multislice Computed Tomography in Infective Endocarditis
Feuchtner, G. M., Stolzmann, P., Dichtl, W., Schertler, T., Bonatti, J., Scheffel, H., Mueller, S., Plass, A., Mueller, L., Bartel, T., et al. (2009) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.01.077 · Cited by 422
Abdulla, J., Abildstrom, S. Z., Gotzsche, O., Christensen, E., Kober, L., & Torp-Pedersen, C. (2007) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm466 · Cited by 357
Ector, J., Dragusin, O., Adriaenssens, B., Huybrechts, W., Willems, R., Ector, H., & Heidbüchel, H. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.03.040 · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Hausleiter, J., Meyer, T., Hadamitzky, M., Huber, E., Zankl, M., Martinoff, S., Kastrati, A., & Schömig, A.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2006-03-14
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1305-1310
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2039011007
- Cited by
- 705
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 71.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.105.602490
- The paper
- Hausleiter, J., Meyer, T., Hadamitzky, M., Huber, E., Zankl, M., Martinoff, S., Kastrati, A., & Schömig, A. (2006). Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.105.602490
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.